XXXX a good thing?

[murkrow]

if someone were XXXX would that be good?

how would they act?

 

[Radioactive_Springtime]

well I imagine one day they would either explode or implode. Or be in a coma.

 

[Dissident]

Was your thread censored or I just dont get the reference to exploding Xs ?

 

[Radioactive_Springtime]

I would imagine someone who was totally on the line would have to explode from the lack, or overwhelming amount of stimuli from all of the different functions.

 

[Dissident]

I think they would use one or the other depending on the situation, not all at the same time. You wouldnt have any psichological weak point, whatever happens you have a decently developed function to deal with it, on the somewhat low side, you wouldnt excel in any area in particular.

 

[Radioactive_Springtime]

i guess it depends one wether it means theyve developed all functions or none.

 

[fullerene]

I was kind of wondering... do you think personality types are an inherent nature, or do you think they develop over time? Do we have weak feelings because we've chosen, subconsciously, not to develop that function, or because we couldn't even if we tried?

If it's a matter of choice, I think the XXXX would just be really well rounded. They would probably understand the strengths and weaknesses of all the functions at different times and be able to make people understand each other much better. If it's a "nature" thing (which I think sounds more plausable, because I clash so much with everything I was raised around), I don't think they would end up being as good at any of them as anyone else. This is because whatever was encouraged in their environment would probably "tip" them into using one side more than another. Since nothing that could be encouraged would be quite natural, though, assuming they were the only XXXX in the world, they wouldn't be very good at anything. They'd probly be either depressed, never quite being as good as anybody else at whatever functions they chose to use, or notice how well they understood people and carve out their place in society around that.

 

[Dissident]

I dont think they would be depressed, who gets to be "the best" at anything anyway? They would be fairly intellectual, fairly practical, fairly sensitive, fairly tidy, etc. They sound like pretty normal happy people. A world with nothing but XXXXs would be a gray boring place tho, I like variety.

 

[Ogion]

Hm, perhaps he meant something like "sex"? Ok, it's four Xs...

Ogion

 

[Dissident]

He means an all-balanced MBTI personality E: 50%, I: 50%, etc. (I didnt get it at first either)

 

[Ogion]

Ah, ok. Was just brainstorming

Ogion

 

[Radioactive_Springtime]

maybe it means this person has attained enlightenment?

 

[Decaf]

Your scores do not represent type development. A child can score 100% on all four letters and be the most immature person imaginable, or they could score even on all four and still be the most immature person imaginable. If someone actually managed to score right on the midpoint for all the dichotomies, it probably means one of the following:

1. They answered the way they wish they were
2. They answered the way they think others want them to be
3. They answered the way they are in a specific situation that may require them to act in a non-preferred way (a.k.a. work).
4. They don't have a strong awareness of your own motivations, or have a selective memory of their own behavior.
5. They may have been stressed, tired, angry, depressed during the testing (these emotions tend to push people into their non-dominant functions as a means of trying to cope with the situation).
6. The test is not perfectly able to determine type even under the best of conditions. Many believe its simply the best we have so far.

This is why we have trained professionals verify type after the fact for any legitimate analysis.

As far as being balanced on any activity, think of each method of behavior as a chain of neurons in your brain. You are genetically predisposed towards one chain because it is easier (the odds of have two neural pathways of equal ability are astronomical, and still irrelevant). Your brain favors that pathway, so it starts to develop it the way that brains do. The more you use it the stronger it becomes. The other pathway is still accessible (unless you have a real mental illness that makes using one pathway very difficult, such as autism's effect on extraversion and psychosis on sensing) but less likely to be used as much.

Growing up people can be pressured to favor the less able pathway, but generally the pressure is not complete enough to cause any kind of permanent change. It just inhibits the growth of both functions as they end up being used at times that do not fit their use and can both end up as underdeveloped, or develop in unhealthy directions. If you keep telling an extraverted kid to sit down and be quiet, eventually he's going to attempt to introvert himself at times when extraversion is required because he's developed a mental block on his preferred function.

Healthy type development is the ability to use all your functions when the situation demands, but relying confidantly on your dominant functions to regulate your life.

OK, I will close with saying this is my theory of personality type in a nutshell. Some of it is supported by the accepted ideology behind Myers-Briggs, and some is my own stuff (like the neural pathway preference). I'm hoping to put it down on paper in an extended and hopefully researched form soon, but being a P, I'm not holding my breathe. Thanks for reading.

 

[PreAlgebra]

Um, wow Decaf. How do I respond after that. I was going to say that, "It seems that either an xxxx would be extremely boring or something of a superhuman that is completely enlightened and well balanced." But now anything I say is totally demystified.

 

[murkrow]

Your scores do not represent type development. A child can score 100% on all four letters and be the most immature person imaginable, or they could score even on all four and still be the most immature person imaginable. If someone actually managed to score right on the midpoint for all the dichotomies, it probably means one of the following:

1. They answered the way they wish they were
2. They answered the way they think others want them to be
3. They answered the way they are in a specific situation that may require them to act in a non-preferred way (a.k.a. work).
4. They don't have a strong awareness of your own motivations, or have a selective memory of their own behavior.
5. They may have been stressed, tired, angry, depressed during the testing (these emotions tend to push people into their non-dominant functions as a means of trying to cope with the situation).
6. The test is not perfectly able to determine type even under the best of conditions. Many believe its simply the best we have so far.

This is why we have trained professionals verify type after the fact for any legitimate analysis.

As far as being balanced on any activity, think of each method of behavior as a chain of neurons in your brain. You are genetically predisposed towards one chain because it is easier (the odds of have two neural pathways of equal ability are astronomical, and still irrelevant). Your brain favors that pathway, so it starts to develop it the way that brains do. The more you use it the stronger it becomes. The other pathway is still accessible (unless you have a real mental illness that makes using one pathway very difficult, such as autism's effect on extraversion and psychosis on sensing) but less likely to be used as much.

Growing up people can be pressured to favor the less able pathway, but generally the pressure is not complete enough to cause any kind of permanent change. It just inhibits the growth of both functions as they end up being used at times that do not fit their use and can both end up as underdeveloped, or develop in unhealthy directions. If you keep telling an extraverted kid to sit down and be quiet, eventually he's going to attempt to introvert himself at times when extraversion is required because he's developed a mental block on his preferred function.

Healthy type development is the ability to use all your functions when the situation demands, but relying confidantly on your dominant functions to regulate your life.

OK, I will close with saying this is my theory of personality type in a nutshell. Some of it is supported by the accepted ideology behind Myers-Briggs, and some is my own stuff (like the neural pathway preference). I'm hoping to put it down on paper in an extended and hopefully researched form soon, but being a P, I'm not holding my breathe. Thanks for reading.

So you think it's impossible for someone to have no dominant functions?

 

[James Black]

Thread revival ftw---

A girl who I know, and recently forced to take an MBTI test, tested roughly 55%/45% on all areas. >.<

 

[Ermine]

I honestly don't think it's possible, since your type is your default. You can deviate from that all you want, even to the degree of being totally balanced, but everyone has their comfort zones, even nearly perfect people, whatever perfect means.

Also, if you know your way around in MBTI, you could manipulate the test into telling you what you want to hear.

 

[James Black]

Yes, you can, sure -- But why would you? ^.^

 

[Auburn]

As far as being balanced on any activity, think of each method of behavior as a chain of neurons in your brain. You are genetically predisposed towards one chain because it is easier (the odds of have two neural pathways of equal ability are astronomical, and still irrelevant). Your brain favors that pathway, so it starts to develop it the way that brains do. The more you use it the stronger it becomes. The other pathway is still accessible (unless you have a real mental illness that makes using one pathway very difficult, such as autism's effect on extraversion and psychosis on sensing) but less likely to be used as much.

This is exactly what I think too!!!

I actually was trying to explain it in an essay, but I couldn't word it correctly - hence it can be very easily criticized and dismissed - so I won't even quote it here.

I believe that one's own personality is determined physically. In other words, the physical way your brain is wired determines your personality. As to how this wiring works, I don't know. One theory I had was that perhaps there are specific regions in the brain that belong to the 8 functions - As in: a specific region for the thinking brain, feeling brain, sensing brain, intuitive brain, etc... just as specific regions belong to smell, taste, touch, etc..

Your personality preference may then depend on what functions are more physically developed - As in: which functions have more layers of nerve pathways strengthening them, similar to how memory is strengthen by repetition - and each repitition creates more memory nerve cells.

'tis a theory still, yes, but a good theory in my opinion
​

 

[Gorgrim]

my immidiate thought was that with no dominant function your brain wouldn't know which way to tackle with things. Can you use several functions at once? if you could, it wouldn't be a problem if all were equal. I think the brain wouldnt be able to use any equally. And I wonder when it realised it should rely mostly on thinking, in our case?


this was also a reply to Murkrow's comment: So you think it's impossible for someone to have no dominant functions?

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

THE PHYSIOLOGY OF TYPE: INTROVERSION AND EXTRAVERSION
http://www.benziger.org/articles/physfunctions.php

SO this article essentially state that the 4 cognitive functions (we're ignoring extroversion and introversion here) are housed in 4 different parts of the brain.

Left frontal cortex: Thinking
Right frontal cortex: Intuition
Left posterior convextivity: Sensing
Right posterior convextivity: Feeling

Additionally your primary function is vastly superior to the other three combined, but you get usable secondary & tertiary functions because your primary function links to those areas. For us, our thinking links to sensing and intuition. Neurons in the brain run side to side or front to back, but they don't run diagonally! So we have weak feeling.

One would really have to have a messed up brain development if they were equally strong in all areas. These people's actions might resemble the actions of someone with bipolar- because they could easily jump from function to function.

I think it'd also require an awesome schooling, from when they're a toddler, to force them to maintain equal preference for the functions instead of just using one function.

 

[Decaf]

this was also a reply to Murkrow's comment: So you think it's impossible for someone to have no dominant functions?

I guess I'd missed his post. No, I think its impossible to have no dominant function. However, given the right set of circumstances someone's dominant function can be repressed through subconscious efforts. No one thinks entirely in two languages simultaneously. You can get good at using a second or third one, but everyone finds themselves relying on their dominant language the majority of the time.

As far as the concept of balance being achieved by spending equal amounts of time on each function... Jack of all trades, master of none. Balance comes from knowing who you are and who you aren't. Its been said that with advantage, there is a disadvantage and I believe that is always true. But to put it more specifically, every advantage IS ALSO a disadvantage. By trying to purge yourself of you disadvantages, you purge yourself of your advantages as well.

Thanks for the article Jones, I'll read it as soon as I get a change at work tomorrow.

 

[Anticitizen]

I don't see how it's possible to score evenly, given the dichotomous nature of the questions on your typical MBTI test - unless you deliberately give contradicting answers on similar questions.

 

[Nightingale]

Isn't it possible to, for instance, act as a "T" in some situations and like an "F" in other situations, for a net blance of 50/50?

I suppose the failure to arrive at a dominant function might speak for the inadequacy of the questions asked in the test.

 

[NoID10ts]

Oh man. This thread isn't what I thought it was going to be about, at all. I feel cheated.

 

[FF]

I think it would be a good thing AND a bad thing.

There's nothing wrong with being a well-rounded individual when it comes to all aspects of personality. There are good things about E's and I's, S's and N's, T's and F's, and J's and P's. I try to remember to act extroverted, use my senses and emotions, and try to be more timely and organized, all in certain situations.

However.

It would be a terrible thing in the sense that this person has no distinct qualities about himself or herself. He or she has absolutely nothing different that makes him or her an individual. It would be awful if someone was born with a natural XXXX personality. However, trying to act like one, even if you aren't naturally one (for example, me trying to remind myself to act like an E, or S, or F, or J in certain situations) isn't a bad thing at all.

 

[BurnoutPriest]

I have studied the personality types a little and one interesting fact is that people who are close to 50/50 in any one area tend to live much more stressful lives. For example, someone with a near 50/50 thinking/feeling function can easily feel torn between the two forces, not sure which one to believe. We have it a bit easier as usually thinking is automatically preferred. I supposed an "XXXX" would be someone completely torn between their functions. They could even be paralyzed by the conflict. (Assuming an XXXX is even remotely possible)