MBTI R^-1

[dark]

I have been wondering something, I have read the profiles of the types, and it seems they think extroverted people in relationships are more likely to cheat or something of that sort than introverts.

From reading a lot of things here I have noticed most of you INTPs have less of a need to stay with a person than myself, and ENTP.

This is also found in a friend from high school. He is an INTP, people always said we looked alike and that we acted alike, they many times thought we were brothers but we aren't even slightly related, I was just more extroverted than him. I remember talking to him about relationships, really not sure why, but he said he would rather have a random female and never have to talk to her again, while I mentioned I would rather have one female and stay with her until I lost interest or something became unpleasing etc.

MBTI profiles seem to be the complete opposite. Maybe there really is no way to determine this via typology.

Is this a common thing with most INTPs? It may be part of the anti-social aspect us NTs have. But us extroverts seem to be more inclined to break the rule and form bonds with people. ENTJs especially, but they are probably just using the other. I am thinking if the MBTI is right with all the other types, maybe us NTs are just fucked up and flipped in comparison to the rest.

Or maybe they are right and I am just screwing the whole idea up because of the example I gave of myself and a friend. I really don't know why two NTPs would ever get onto a conversation like that... Maybe because the only thing he ever talked about was girls, even though he never had a girl friend in high school according to my knowledge.

Hum as I think about it, maybe I am wrong because an ENTJ friend of mine was always cheating on his girl friend, even in college he does that. I guess I am just the weird person that doesn't fit to the standards eh. And why do we have to follow standards anyhow? Just because you may be an INTP and me an ENTP or some other fellow an ESTP, doesn't mean we should expect them to do the 'normal.' Sure ESTPs are more prone to con or so we have heard, but that doesn't mean they all do that. Well my grandfather does a lot haha, or at least he used to.

I really don't know where I am getting at, maybe I just wanted to rant, and I am not even sure if this belongs here. I just hope I am not an ENFP... I am sure I don't have Fi, that is just odd to think of. And I know I don't have Te, so nope not an ENFP, guess I am still ENTP, shew that was a close one.

 

[EvilScientist Trainee]

I think of this as a matter of probability.

The introvert is one kind of person that, despite being able to handle and - let's say, enjoy - social interaction, is drained by being spending too many time with people/real world. Therefore, the amount of social interaction and the willingness to do so will be lower. That makes chances for cheating a bit lower. Not that it doesn't happen, of course. But speaking as an introvert, i wouldn't enjoy going through all the hassle of social interaction to cheat if i already got someone waiting for me.

Extroverts, on other hand, enjoy and are energized by interacting with people/real world. That increases the time one passes interacting with others, and makes the chances of having a chance to cheat a bit higher. So, where I'd see a tiresome path to cheat(i.e. interacting with people in order to get something), the extravert sees as a something fun. They'll try and if they fail, they had fun interacting.

In the end, chances are that a extrovert will have more chance to cheat than an introvert, albeit both can, and might cheat at some point or another. But I'd rather think of this as a matter of values and preferences.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Define 'cheating'.

 

[dark]

Define 'define.'

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Nice try. You have demonstrated your understanding of the word.

 

[dark]

Actually I just used it in reference to what you were speaking of, I still don't understand this 'define' word you mentioned. During my demonstration I must have done something intuitively because I am still puzzled, this curiosity strains me. What is the 'define' we are now speaking of?

 

[KazeCraven]

What is this R that is being raised to a negative power?

 

[dark]

Well it was a theme of relationships having the possibilities of flipping depending on the type chosen, which was the question if that happens, but seems as though it may just be personal preference to do certain things.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

IPs = Socially focused
IJs = Individually focused
EJs = Socially focused
EPs = Individually focused

So an INTP would see a relationship as an opportunity to feel socially satisfied. We usually are not, so the ability to leave someone without thinking twice isn't strong within us.

On the other hand EPs and IJs see relationships as opportunities for personal/individual development. If they are already fulfilled as an individual, people can be tossed around(not that they will do such a thing).

 

[Fukyo]

IPs = Socially focused
IJs = Individually focused
EJs = Socially focused
EPs = Individually focused

So an INTP would see a relationship as an opportunity to feel socially satisfied. We usually are not, so the ability to leave someone without thinking twice isn't strong within us.

On the other hand EPs and IJs see relationships as opportunities for personal/individual development. If they are already fulfilled as an individual, people can be tossed around(not that they will do such a thing).

-derail-

Spoiler

ESC, we use different typological models and I know you're not going to agree with what I'm going to say. I'm not out to convince you either, but I have to get this out of my system.

Almost every time I read your posts I cringe at the amount of Ni-Fe philosophy that permeates them, I seriously cannot believe you are an MBTI INTP.

What you said about IPs in your post above is so blatantly inaccurate, and so many times you've said "we INTPs do x, or think y", my mind just screams "INFJ! INFJ!" at me. The fact you're most likely basing your observations from yourself and your experiences only strengthens this notion in my mind.

What made it click in my head was actually your insistence that the sociotype of INTp corresponds with MBTI INTP, after I realized how INTp would suit an INFJ who prefers to use Ni-Ti more.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

1.) I was referring to MBTI for this.
2.) NiFe philosophy? Whaa? lol I'm no feeler.
3.) The observations have been of people in my life, type profiles provide the solidification.
4.) INTp and INTP are the same. Going by descriptions they seem different, but only because there is a different perspective in the systems. MBTI classifies type from external observations, behavior and interests. Socionics omits external prominence to identify the psychologically embedded type.

I will say that my behavior has slightly changed, but not just in the recent weeks. Since graduating high school, I no longer stress my logical side, and I'm completely out of touch with day to day matters. The result is that I have been focusing more on my mental state, my inner balance and the means of keeping it. In MBTI, rest assured, I am still INTP. Clearly I am not INFJ, if you'd like we can have a conversation with one irl to expose our differences.

*Excuse me here, but I think MBTI feeds you a lot of bullshit. It makes you feel confident in areas you really are not naturally attuned to, resulting in confirmation bias and an inaccurate perspective of your lifestyle.

 

[Fukyo]

MBTI classifies type from external observations, behavior and interests. Socionics omits external prominence to identify the psychologically embedded type.

I think some clarifications of my position are in order here. If you've read any of my posts regarding typology within the past year, you'd know my approach is exactly going past the behavioral tendencies to uncover their root withing the frame of cognitive functions.

I will refer you to this post of mine:

Spoiler

I guess it's my fault for not clarifying why I use these terms; I'll do it now. I'll also explain my understanding of the typology in general. Hopefully I'll make more sense this time.

--

The traditional MBTI is mostly concerned with the four letter codes that dictate the personality. It will supply you with "personality descriptions" and expect you to perfectly fit into a highly faulty box. It uses a very deceiving testing method that measures how many blank, one sided traits you posses and assigns you a dichotomy accordingly. It uses terms such as "Judger" and "Feeler" to describe the dichotomies. It only mentions the cognitive functions offhandedly, not giving them the credit they deserve.

Why is the neglect of functions bad? Why are the profiles a faulty box? What is wrong with the four letter axis?

The "personality descriptions" are highly generalized, archetypal, vague summaries of a set of possible behaviors that emerge in a certain type. In fact, too vague to even be considered categories in my opinion. Is it realistic to expect all people belonging to one type to conform to these notions perfectly when the human psyche is inherently more complex?

This is where we reach the problem. MBTI is about motives, causes, the roots in the psyche that cause behaviors. This is why I refer to functions as mechanisms, because they are the foundation, the building blocks. The behavior itself is a product of these mechanisms and their interaction. Not to be the end of it, there is a huge amount of variables and factors involved in how these mechanisms will manifest in the individual psyche, creating a variety of possibilities and outcomes within what was previously thought of as a "box".

This is why I find what's written above inaccurate. I don't think in terms of the 4 letter axis, because I find it misleading, nor do I use the terms "Perceiver" and "Judger". I also recommend anyone with a serious interest in MBTI to focus on the functional mechanisms for the reasons I stated above. This only assuming you are interested in figuring out the roots of a certain behavior and not behavior itself. If your intention is simply to assign a name to a set of observable behaviors then yes, a close approximation of "Judger" would be the one seeking closure, and "Perceiver" the one that is open ended.

Still, regardless of my discomfort with this, as the terms and language used in MBTI are already ambiguous enough to the point of obfuscation, if your purpose is simply to summarize an observable behavior, these will suffice.

This is my most basic understanding of Jungian typology. I am neither a MBTI nor a Socionics proponent, and I find both systems faulty and/or inaccurate.

I do not have a good term for my own understanding, my reason for using the term "MBTI" was to make it clear to you I am not using Socionics as I wanted to avoid Socionics getting mix up in there.

My understanding draws upon a mix of work of various Jungian analysts and authors who are traditionally associated with MBTI even if that is not always a correct assumption, but it is made because MBTI is a prevailing conclusion where Jung and types are discussed; with my own refinement of their concepts.

---> See here.

NiFe philosophy? Whaa? lol I'm no feeler.

Surely you do not think I have called you an illogical, emotional mess?
I do not think you behave as a Feeler.

Curiously, I have seen you purport the notion that INFJs and INFPs are benevolent and harmless, especially when INFJs have been discussed; you've stated that they'd never harm anyone.

The extent to which an individual is benevolent or malevolent is as far as I'm concerned a behavioral trait, not a type trait.

This is precisely why I have used the term philosophy to refer to what I have observed in your posts.

Well, laws should reflect customs, customs should reflect values, values should reflect character, and character should reflect experience. Until the majority of society has had sexual relations with a corpse, I don't think we as a whole are in a position to outlaw it.

I can't see this as anything else than a Fe philosophy.

INTPs, I thought, are programmed to criticize and reform the world through the changing of society. They manipulate customs, traditions and laws, to cause people to question their own allegiance to such absurd conventions to start on a new slate. Socialism is the key here, but on a personal level. Society needs to change so the people can live better lives. The end result is an enlightened state.

Now this, in particular, is very, very INFJ. In fact, it's textbook INFJ.

Using Fe to manipulate society and it's constructs to align with a preconceived notion of how society should be.


Yes, these posts are presented here out of context, I know very well we could go back and forth fitting them into different contexts and function definitions, since I so think we define them differently.

I could speculate you are an INTP with a beast of a Fe, but as far as the probability of that possibility goes, I am skeptical.

I will say though, the ultimate goal of an INTP is to present their Ti constructs to society via Fe, as is the INFJ's ultimate goal is to make their Ni vision real in the concrete reality via Se, but when we talk about this, we're talking about a truly significant level of functional development that isn't exactly all that common.

I believe Jung referred to it as Individuation.

It would come down to determining whether this reformation of society comes from Ti or Ni, and whether the initial tool used is Ne or Fe, but that post alludes to Fe far more.

Manipulation of customs and traditions as a primary mechanism of reformation seems out of realm of INTP Fe. It seems more at home in the realm of INFJ Fe-Ti working to meet the Ni agenda.

Lastly, about IPs. Wanting to feel socially satisfied is much more pertinent to the position of Fe on the functional hierarchy, imo.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Oy vey, I've been trying to limit these types of discussions. I'd like to just say think what you want to think, but that'd be a cop out, wouldn't it?

I think some clarifications of my position are in order here. If you've read any of my posts regarding typology within the past year, you'd know my approach is exactly going past the behavioral tendencies to uncover their root withing the frame of cognitive functions.

I will refer you to this post of mine:


This is my most basic understanding of Jungian typology. I am neither a MBTI nor a Socionics proponent, and I find both systems faulty and/or inaccurate.

Very well, your position is understood. Although it depends on where you get your idea of the cognitive functions. From Jung, at best you have overlapping between Ti and Ni types and rough concepts that only yield to mental models; from MBTI, you have functions as they have been abstracted from modified Jungian types with countless interpretations based on mostly external behavior; and finally, from Socionics, you have functions abstracted from Jungian types that have been additionally dichotomized by rational/irrational, with interpretations based on psychoanalysis. It is because of this that one can find himself reading a different description of the same function.

I do not have a good term for my own understanding, my reason for using the term "MBTI" was to make it clear to you I am not using Socionics as I wanted to avoid Socionics getting mix up in there.

My understanding draws upon a mix of work of various Jungian analysts and authors who are traditionally associated with MBTI even if that is not always a correct assumption, but it is made because MBTI is a prevailing conclusion where Jung and types are discussed; with my own refinement of their concepts.

---> See here.

Excellent, I too prefer to draw from more than one typological system for a better perspective, while still being aware of the boundaries. But note, Socionics and MBTI are incompatible insofar as to apply the same semantics of functions.

Surely you do not think I have called you an illogical, emotional mess?
I do not think you behave as a Feeler.

Curiously, I have seen you purport the notion that INFJs and INFPs are benevolent and harmless, especially when INFJs have been discussed; you've stated that they'd never harm anyone.

The extent to which an individual is benevolent or malevolent is as far as I'm concerned a behavioral trait, not a type trait.

This is precisely why I have used the term philosophy to refer to what I have observed in your posts.

Well, firstly, I guess I should make it more clear when I make negligible assertions. Of course any type - anybody can be violent or passive or whatever. Here, we speak of inclinations.

I can't see this as anything else than a Fe philosophy.

Besides the fact that I was making a joke, my main point was that social and governmental representatives feel they know "what's best" for individuals, yet the individuals do not have a chance to experience the "worst" themselves to have a say in the matter. Clearly, this is anti-Fe, as there is an emphasis on individualism.

Now this, in particular, is very, very INFJ. In fact, it's textbook INFJ.

Using Fe to manipulate society and it's constructs to align with a preconceived notion of how society should be.

What happened here is that you are using your knowledge of functions to explain my proposed traits, what results is misapplication and thus mistyping. As explanation would involve me discussing the semantics of functions, I won't go any further on the matter.

Yes, these posts are presented here out of context, I know very well we could go back and forth fitting them into different contexts and function definitions, since I so think we define them differently.

Yes, we do.

I could speculate you are an INTP with a beast of a Fe, but as far as the probability of that possibility goes, I am skeptical.

Haha, if only.

I will say though, the ultimate goal of an INTP is to present their Ti constructs to society via Fe, as is the INFJ's ultimate goal is to make their Ni vision real in the concrete reality via Se, but when we talk about this, we're talking about a truly significant level of functional development that isn't exactly all that common.

I believe Jung referred to it as Individuation.

This is the bull's shit of MBTI interpretations that I speak of: Misapplication of motivations and behaviors to inappropriate functions and confirmation bias. Further discussion here would lead to semantics also, so I will withhold.

It would come down to determining whether this reformation of society comes from Ti or Ni, and whether the initial tool used is Ne or Fe, but that post alludes to Fe far more.

Manipulation of customs and traditions as a primary mechanism of reformation seems out of realm of INTP Fe. It seems more at home in the realm of INFJ Fe-Ti working to meet the Ni agenda.

Lastly, about IPs. Wanting to feel socially satisfied is much more pertinent to the position of Fe on the functional hierarchy, imo.

Semantics, also. I am not claiming the essence of a different type, so therefore we would arrive at the same conclusions via differing functions and processes. Although, I'd like to point out that by being "socially satisfied", I do not mean having plentiful friends or any of the usual imagery that results from the connotations of being socially involved. I merely mean that IPs focus their productive(judging, if you prefer) energy on external matters, so their sense of achievement and satisfaction is derived from external factors.

 

[Fukyo]

I merely mean that IPs focus their productive(judging, if you prefer) energy on external matters, so their sense of achievement and satisfaction is derived from external factors.

Judging? As in Thinking and Feeling functions?
Are you saying they are deriving satisfaction from their inferior functions?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Try to withhold application, remember we are using different meanings of the functions. I am saying IPs derive satisfaction from external involvement. Finding one's niche, acceptance, certified competency, social morality, resourcefulness, relationships etc. Energy is garnered to produce externally. The reverse would be the gathering of external energy(information, tools), to produce internally.

 

[Cegorach]

I have to say that for an extremely long time I've been thinking EyeSeeCold is INFJ too, everything points towards supporting that hypothesis despite it being something that is near impossible to prove via empirical evidence regardless of any truth in it.

Having gone through countless typological systems and expanded out into reading articles on neuroscience and psychology that have nothing to do with MBTI or functions, and aimed at finding a root to typology through them, I've somewhat ended up with a unique system that I'm still developing, but which has given me far more promise than many obviously lacking systems.


To me typology should not define Fe (for example) as social or ethical, then coming across an obviously Fe individual who doesn't fit the criteria of an individual who orients to social functions or entirely ethical ideas, say "well, sometimes Fe treats things other than people as its social arena" or "sometimes they orient to something other than ethics"; It should work to connect those two ideas from a common root and treat them as manifestations rather than definitions in themselves (and yes, I am aware that at some point it would come down requiring access to neuroscience before deeper roots could be understood, but we should dig as deep as possible).


So given how I've thus far developed this system we can understand the NiFe (INFJ) as this:

NiFe

Spoiler

Ni orients itself towards an abstract reductionist perception process that seeks to reduce the perceived context , orienting itself inwards from the point of access (of the concept) towards the root by expanding the known context into categories through Fe and reading the probable pattern back to the root through inductive perception.
Once the root is found Ni orients itself towards discovering the sub-roots of the sub-categories and filling in the assumed framework with abstract detail; by directing the process to access the ‘worldview’ Ni can cross reference the past conceptual frameworks with the present to inductively assess the location of suspected roots and sub-roots within the current concept that may work on similar principles and patterns as previous concepts.


Fe, as a function, orients towards a process involved in expanding affectively derived categories and sub-categories to create a framework developed through the method of deduction. It works on the principle of affective value and affective understanding being extracted or added from and to the context of the selected concept or observation; it orients outwards from the point of access (of the concept) to further manifestations.
Hence idea ‘A’ is worthless to any affectively expounded foundation without forming the framework between ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’, (AB, CD, ABCD, etc) connected according to a related pattern or function and forming related categories.

In using a simplified definition of the processes being oriented towards in the Judgement function I could see it confusing to interpret what I mean by "affective".
An affective Judgement process, given in the artificial categories defined here, is not a process that orients towards emotional displays or emotional abstractions, but rather it's identifying a more subtle and deeper form of cognition that points towards "emotion" in its most innate form.

Emotions are thought to be related to activity in brain areas that direct our attention, motivate our behavior, and determine the significance of what is going on around us, we use them every day, every one of us, and they are observed in subtle nuances such as when we say "I like 'X'" (X could be "pizza", for example), it's how we develop our cognitive preferences and form desires(which do differ from what are called "preferences" when referring to functions, those are inherent to our psyche, not formed through it).

So 'Feeling', in this case, refers to an orientation towards a process that produces emotions according to stimulus, directs them on a unabstracted (involved) level, and sorts significance, attention, and motivation when there are not enough variables for our 'Thinking' functions to adequately perform.
Don't underestimate how often we lack variables, and how often we direct ourselves according to underlying emotion.


So, to work outwards from this basic understanding, Fe in the NiFe expands from that fundamental affective underlay (directed by Ni towards the root), using these 'Feelings' to create a base understanding of what they're dealing with, the logical processes of Ti assess the known variables from a detached stance directed by the "desires" or orientations of the two higher hierarchy functions.

The Ni aims to assess the abstract understanding behind the feelings or manifestations of Fe, whose expanding orientation relies on context to apply affective value. Context here is very often tied into social functions or cultural morals (though it is not entirely comprised of those) in that they offer a wider array of elements to understand the feelings and through which the root to personal concepts can be assessed.
Though it is far too complex a set of processes to lay out here in full.


Through subtle differences in process come exponential manifestations of those differences as they become externalized from our psyche in apparent displays, through observing displays (expressed motivations, beliefs, etc) over an extensive period of time we can make educated assumptions about their underlying basis, should they be consistent enough.
And you have been more than consistent and open about your beliefs according to yours and other's psyches.

Try to withhold application, remember we are using different meanings of the functions. I am saying IPs derive satisfaction from external involvement. Finding one's niche, acceptance, certified competency, social morality, resourcefulness, relationships etc. Energy is garnered to produce externally. The reverse would be the gathering of external energy(information, tools), to produce internally.

You cannot work on different definitions, it is not possible by the nature of the argument, which is, "You are an INFJ by the standards of my definitions or this assertion of yours is untrue in the case of MBTI/other typological models", it argues nothing in regards to what type you are when using Socionics definitions or the truth behind your assumptions when using such definitions.

You cannot say "I am INTP by the standards of MBTI" and use Socionics definitions to justify that (something I have seen you do again and again and again) and you also cannot argue that your assumptions are true outside of Socionics unless you use the definitions of the system you are arguing in or first prove without a doubt that Socionics is "right" and the other systems are "wrong".

Not many people on this forum are asking questions about Socionics, so giving them answers based on those criteria is sort of faulty without pointing out that your assertions are based on alternative properties from those they were asking for.

- - - - - - -

And to the OP, statements such as ENTPs being less faithful tend to be derived from limited observation of behavior or inductive assumptions based on limited models of typology, tendencies such as that can be debated indefinitely, but no type is going to act the same in its entirety regardless of the processes through which they function.

Best you can do is work to figure out why that is true should it be found to be true or ignore the assertion completely if you doubt the probability of it having merit.

 

[dark]

I am sure EyeSeeCold is not an INFJ, I talk to one daily and I can tell there is no similarities. The use of Fe the posts above are mentioning can probably be understood in a thread I just made about opposites or something like that.

What I think he is doing is using his opposite self. Which I think happens when one actually starts to develop their other functions, so sorry ESC, but the socionics would just not allow you to use Fe like you do.

Most people will not use their other functions well, they avoid them, but when we accept them as being part of us, we tend to understand ourselves better I would like to think.

 

[Cegorach]

I am sure EyeSeeCold is not an INFJ, I talk to one daily and I can tell there is no similarities. The use of Fe the posts above are mentioning can probably be understood in a thread I just made about opposites or something like that.

What I think he is doing is using his opposite self. Which I think happens when one actually starts to develop their other functions, so sorry ESC, but the socionics would just not allow you to use Fe like you do.

Most people will not use their other functions well, they avoid them, but when we accept them as being part of us, we tend to understand ourselves better I would like to think.

With all due respect, you have shown minimal understanding in any practice of typology, claiming that you know some individual who you have typed as an INFJ based on your limited knowledge and of whom I cannot confirm or claiming that the difference in behavior equates to difference in type is not really making much of a point.
I happen to know several INFJs who are nothing like him as well, and several others who are remarkably similar, it's pretty much impossible to argue that there are only 16 types of corresponding behavioral sets in the world.

As I said to EyeSeeCold, he may not be INFJ given the criteria he's using (Socionics), but given the criteria of our assertion being based outside of his definitions there isn't much use to telling us what he would be were we using them, since we're not currently questioning that; the same goes for what you're saying.

 

[dark]

No offense taken, I am merely stating an observation, and also I haven't shown any of my understanding because I don't claim to have any. I am a student, I am always willing to learn. Also this individual I did not type, she told me she was an INFJ when I was telling her what I was reading about.

Also it would be difficult to type an individual based on their typing, I just think we should take others word for it since we really don't know them, if they think they are this then they are.

And yes you are right, there is much more than 16 types, but those are the baselines, I have read elsewhere where people have arranged the letters making many types within each one, all depending on what tendencies they have an how far they are in certain aspects of functions and all, and again I am showing my lack of understanding.

 

[Cegorach]

No offense taken, I am merely stating an observation, and also I haven't shown any of my understanding because I don't claim to have any. I am a student, I am always willing to learn. Also this individual I did not type, she told me she was an INFJ when I was telling her what I was reading about.

Also it would be difficult to type an individual based on their typing, I just think we should take others word for it since we really don't know them, if they think they are this then they are.

And yes you are right, there is much more than 16 types, but those are the baselines, I have read elsewhere where people have arranged the letters making many types within each one, all depending on what tendencies they have an how far they are in certain aspects of functions and all, and again I am showing my lack of understanding.

In my experience people know themselves very, very much less than they would like to assume, and should you present your educated assumptions about them in the correct manner they often learn more about themselves when you can actually get them to accept it without them feeling imposed upon, however I'm hardly trying to convince EyeSeeCold here, just presenting what will likely be perceived as a possibility, however unlikely in his mind.

Regardless of ones ability to understand themselves in comparison to their peers understanding them, if an individual misunderstands the criteria of which they are typing themselves then it would be illogical to assume they will get a correct answer based on incorrect variables.
This being in reference to the INFJ you refer to, who I am assuming has nothing more than a superficial understanding of MBTI and probably took a test or two to come to their conclusion.


I'm not disputing that there are 16 types of people, the number is arbitrary, since the categories we define, so long as they are composed of consistently related and viable variables, can be virtually any number of groups.
They're artificial, like any construct our minds use to understand the world around us, but still valid.

My point was that behavior as a whole cannot be separated into 16 categories because a category requires that all aspects of which you define the categorized are consistent between the categorized in all situations. Such is impossible with the overall concept of behavior, it does not have any consistency, especially between different behaviors, they just don't come together in apparent sets.
Jungian typology is not looking at behavior, because that would be erroneous within the context of 16 types.

 

[dark]

I am sensing a huge derail, I like it, think this may be the first time a thread I started became derailed, I am proud.

As I have stated I really don't want to argue these points, I am here to learn, I take everyone's comments and try to understand what I can learn from another person's view points.

It is nice when there are multiples with different views.

Also people know more about themselves than we do, but very true about where they need others to understand more of themselves. We can't just live in our own heads our entire life. Etc. Etc.<-- not sure what that is here for but I wanted to use it.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

First let me say this is why I do not value MBTI so much anymore. There is always the air of " That's not how XXXX acts! He must not be XXXX!" which I think is limiting BS. MBTI has a fixed list of common interests and mannerisms for each type and if one exhibits even so much as one peculiar trait they must not be the supposed type. Therefore we have types governed by traits and not some innate essence.

I have to say that for an extremely long time I've been thinking EyeSeeCold is INFJ too, everything points towards supporting that hypothesis despite it being something that is near impossible to prove via empirical evidence regardless of any truth in it.

Nice to know I'm being monitored by staff.

Having gone through countless typological systems and expanded out into reading articles on neuroscience and psychology that have nothing to do with MBTI or functions, and aimed at finding a root to typology through them, I've somewhat ended up with a unique system that I'm still developing, but which has given me far more promise than many obviously lacking systems.

Spoiler

To me typology should not define Fe (for example) as social or ethical, then coming across an obviously Fe individual who doesn't fit the criteria of an individual who orients to social functions or entirely ethical ideas, say "well, sometimes Fe treats things other than people as its social arena" or "sometimes they orient to something other than ethics"; It should work to connect those two ideas from a common root and treat them as manifestations rather than definitions in themselves (and yes, I am aware that at some point it would come down requiring access to neuroscience before deeper roots could be understood, but we should dig as deep as possible).


So given how I've thus far developed this system we can understand the NiFe (INFJ) as this:

NiFe

Spoiler

Ni orients itself towards an abstract reductionist perception process that seeks to reduce the perceived context , orienting itself inwards from the point of access (of the concept) towards the root by expanding the known context into categories through Fe and reading the probable pattern back to the root through inductive perception.
Once the root is found Ni orients itself towards discovering the sub-roots of the sub-categories and filling in the assumed framework with abstract detail; by directing the process to access the ‘worldview’ Ni can cross reference the past conceptual frameworks with the present to inductively assess the location of suspected roots and sub-roots within the current concept that may work on similar principles and patterns as previous concepts.


Fe, as a function, orients towards a process involved in expanding affectively derived categories and sub-categories to create a framework developed through the method of deduction. It works on the principle of affective value and affective understanding being extracted or added from and to the context of the selected concept or observation; it orients outwards from the point of access (of the concept) to further manifestations.
Hence idea ‘A’ is worthless to any affectively expounded foundation without forming the framework between ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’, (AB, CD, ABCD, etc) connected according to a related pattern or function and forming related categories.

In using a simplified definition of the processes being oriented towards in the Judgement function I could see it confusing to interpret what I mean by "affective".
An affective Judgement process, given in the artificial categories defined here, is not a process that orients towards emotional displays or emotional abstractions, but rather it's identifying a more subtle and deeper form of cognition that points towards "emotion" in its most innate form.

Emotions are thought to be related to activity in brain areas that direct our attention, motivate our behavior, and determine the significance of what is going on around us, we use them every day, every one of us, and they are observed in subtle nuances such as when we say "I like 'X'" (X could be "pizza", for example), it's how we develop our cognitive preferences and form desires(which do differ from what are called "preferences" when referring to functions, those are inherent to our psyche, not formed through it).

So 'Feeling', in this case, refers to an orientation towards a process that produces emotions according to stimulus, directs them on a unabstracted (involved) level, and sorts significance, attention, and motivation when there are not enough variables for our 'Thinking' functions to adequately perform.
Don't underestimate how often we lack variables, and how often we direct ourselves according to underlying emotion.


So, to work outwards from this basic understanding, Fe in the NiFe expands from that fundamental affective underlay (directed by Ni towards the root), using these 'Feelings' to create a base understanding of what they're dealing with, the logical processes of Ti assess the known variables from a detached stance directed by the "desires" or orientations of the two higher hierarchy functions.

The Ni aims to assess the abstract understanding behind the feelings or manifestations of Fe, whose expanding orientation relies on context to apply affective value. Context here is very often tied into social functions or cultural morals (though it is not entirely comprised of those) in that they offer a wider array of elements to understand the feelings and through which the root to personal concepts can be assessed.
Though it is far too complex a set of processes to lay out here in full.


Through subtle differences in process come exponential manifestations of those differences as they become externalized from our psyche in apparent displays, through observing displays (expressed motivations, beliefs, etc) over an extensive period of time we can make educated assumptions about their underlying basis, should they be consistent enough.
And you have been more than consistent and open about your beliefs according to yours and other's psyches.

If you have to go through such lengths to describe a process, is not it possible that somewhere your theory is unreasonable? "The simplest answer is usually the correct answer." I'm not saying that you're wrong, merely that if you find yourself jumping hoops to explain a simple empirical process, you may just be basking in confirmation bias. I have read all of it but cannot absorb it all at this time.

You cannot work on different definitions, it is not possible by the nature of the argument, which is, "You are an INFJ by the standards of my definitions or this assertion of yours is untrue in the case of MBTI/other typological models", it argues nothing in regards to what type you are when using Socionics definitions or the truth behind your assumptions when using such definitions.

You cannot say "I am INTP by the standards of MBTI" and use Socionics definitions to justify that (something I have seen you do again and again and again) and you also cannot argue that your assumptions are true outside of Socionics unless you use the definitions of the system you are arguing in or first prove without a doubt that Socionics is "right" and the other systems are "wrong".

I do not cross functions and types in the differing systems. As I have said earlier, I am aware of each system's boundaries. I am being told that I am INFJ by MBTI standards, I claim this is due to the semantics and limiting nature of MBTI, not that I necessarily am exhibiting the traits of another type. Also I see MBTI and Socionics as neither wrong nor right, just both working from different perspectives.

Not many people on this forum are asking questions about Socionics, so giving them answers based on those criteria is sort of faulty without pointing out that your assertions are based on alternative properties from those they were asking for.

Socionics theory has nothing to do with my initial post in this thread. Those suppositions were based on my observations.

As I said to EyeSeeCold, he may not be INFJ given the criteria he's using (Socionics), but given the criteria of our assertion being based outside of his definitions there isn't much use to telling us what he would be were we using them, since we're not currently questioning that; the same goes for what you're saying.

You and others consistently believe I am working only with Socionics. This is not the case. When I post here at INTPf with typology in mind, I take in to account the MBTI attitude before I post.

 

[dark]

Uhmm, Yeah this wasn't supposed to be about EyeSeeCold, which I don't mind, interesting, but we somehow did not actually loose track, with the posts I have concluded that the MBTI types can not be used to define what everyone will do.

Even though the basis was derailed we somehow gain all the answers in the derailment. That is intriguing. I'm impressed.

So I am wondering, I haven't done as much research on socionics yet, but does it tend to have a better use of functions? What I think I am more concerned about is peoples functions. The lettering of types I could care less about. I know I use Ne, work with Ti most the time when I am not talking, sometimes I feel Fe and Si almost destroys me because I am not yet adapted to it. If that makes sense.

Also sorry if I lead this to a socionics discussion, but if people want to leave it out, a yes or no answer would be fine with me. I will probably, if I remember to, check some stuff on it tomorrow.

 

[KazeCraven]

Some adherents to Socionics point out that the functions don't necessarily mean the same things as they do in MBTI. Not surprisingly, most people on MBTI forums will argue that MBTI is better, and vice versa on Socionics forums.

 

[echoplex]

I am being told that I am INFJ by MBTI standards, I claim this is due to the semantics and limiting nature of MBTI, not that I necessarily am exhibiting the traits of another type.

Probably nitpicking, but you're not being told that. You're being told you're an INFJ by Fukyo's and Cegorach's standards, based on how they define that type. Both of them seem to disagree with MBTI. It's an important distinction imo because it's not an either/or situation. It's not either MBTI or socionics that descriptions/reasoning come from. Even the functions are likely being defined by a different understanding than MBTI offers.

 

[cheese]

Anyone notice that Cow is starting to sound like Claverhouse?

Attack of the Clones!

 

[EyeSeeCold]

@echoplex

True, but then if not MBTI, we must have an understanding of each other's standards and perspectives. Perspective is the key word though. I mean a painter could be looking at an apple and see an object to paint. Whereas someone in hunger will see food. First we line up our perspectives, then we clarify our meanings and we will be able to have understanding(but not necessarily agreement).

 

[Cegorach]

First let me say this is why I do not value MBTI so much anymore. There is always the air of " That's not how XXXX acts! He must not be XXXX!" which I think is limiting BS. MBTI has a fixed list of common interests and mannerisms for each type and if one exhibits even so much as one peculiar trait they must not be the supposed type. Therefore we have types governed by traits and not some innate essence.

I'm going to assume this is not directed at me as I've very directly explained that I neither use MBTI nor consider mannerisms relevant beyond inclination.

Nice to know I'm being monitored by staff.

If by staff you mean me in isolation, then yes, but I keep a close eye on most all regular members of this forum, so it's hardly something peculiar to you.

If you have to go through such lengths to describe a process, is not it possible that somewhere your theory is unreasonable? "The simplest answer is usually the correct answer." I'm not saying that you're wrong, merely that if you find yourself jumping hoops to explain a simple empirical process, you may just be basking in confirmation bias. I have read all of it but cannot absorb it all at this time.

I believe you're misinterpreting Occam's Razor.

My definitions are not positing a greater plurality of entitites, what my definition is doing, or attempting to do, is encompass the current understandings born from individual's observation of functions into a single root cause and underlying process, treating them as extensions of that main idea.
In other words, reducing the plurality of entities.

I think you're misconstruing the amount of effort put into clarifying the entities as somehow defining it as a more complex system.


If we simply assert that Fe is a form of social ethics and never ask ourselves through what elements social ethics are formed then we're not really defining the root of the process, we're defining a manifestation of a deeper process.

Many typological systems make claims of functions doing disparate things from the given definition (like Fe being comprised of concepts not spawning off of social ethics, yet still attributed to the process of Fe), it's entirely necessary for any category that all elements being identified as part of it are consistent in every observation of that category (within the stated parameters), if they are not, either it is a false category or the seemingly unrelated elements are connected by something deeper that retains its consistency.
What I don't think many people realize is that Jung did not identify THE processes of the mind, he identified a way to categorize the inconceivable complexity of our thought process into 16 simplified packages that allowed for practical applications; anybody could potentially do it, and attribute virtually any number of processes as well, so long as the processes were formed of internally consistent packages.


That said, I find confirmation bias unlikely in this case, I'm hardly a proponent of what I'm doing and will likely always remain my own harshest critic, it's merely a tool that I've refined to fit the facts and will continue to refine indefinitely or until I find it to lack merit, but I should point out that, while I am the creator of it, I am not alone in its development, it has been formed through a long process of debate and is still in a developmental stage.

Some adherents to Socionics point out that the functions don't necessarily mean the same things as they do in MBTI. Not surprisingly, most people on MBTI forums will argue that MBTI is better, and vice versa on Socionics forums.

Indeed. Personally I never set out to create my own system, it just developed as I looked to iron out the flaws I perceived in both MBTI and Socionics (and other systems).

The debate over which is better would be more productive for those impartial to either, in my opinion, advocates of either rarely have much interest beyond proving their correctness.

Anyone notice that Cow is starting to sound like Claverhouse?

Attack of the Clones!

I believe this is a matter of personal detachment from the forum, with continued responsibilities and interests in abstracted elements of it (though perhaps this is more myself than Claver, I can hardly speak for him).

I post entirely in the spirit of "business", and tend to have a goal in mind when posting rather than arbitrarily posting an opinion, regardless of whether the goal is apparent or stated, hence things like acknowledging others or pleasantries are irrelevant as I have no desire to make others think that I like them, regardless of whether I do.
As easy as it would be to place a simple "" and change the entire mood of my post to be more relatable.

I think elements distinct from those of other members have taken precedence for me and my demeanor has modified to meet the goals of my mind, although this is usually the demeanor that rises to the top in any case.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I believe you're misinterpreting Occam's Razor.

My definitions are not positing a greater plurality of entitites, what my definition is doing, or attempting to do, is encompass the current understandings born from individual's observation of functions into a single root cause and underlying process, treating them as extensions of that main idea.
In other words, reducing the plurality of entities.

I think you're misconstruing the amount of effort put into clarifying the entities as somehow defining it as a more complex system.


If we simply assert that Fe is a form of social ethics and never ask ourselves through what elements social ethics are formed then we're not really defining the root of the process, we're defining a manifestation of a deeper process.

Many typological systems make claims of functions doing disparate things from the given definition (like Fe being comprised of concepts not spawning off of social ethics, yet still attributed to the process of Fe), it's entirely necessary for any category that all elements being identified as part of it are consistent in every observation of that category (within the stated parameters), if they are not, either it is a false category or the seemingly unrelated elements are connected by something deeper that retains its consistency.
What I don't think many people realize is that Jung did not identify THE processes of the mind, he identified a way to categorize the inconceivable complexity of our thought process into 16 simplified packages that allowed for practical applications; anybody could potentially do it, and attribute virtually any number of processes as well, so long as the processes were formed of internally consistent packages.


That said, I find confirmation bias unlikely in this case, I'm hardly a proponent of what I'm doing and will likely always remain my own harshest critic, it's merely a tool that I've refined to fit the facts and will continue to refine indefinitely or until I find it to lack merit, but I should point out that, while I am the creator of it, I am not alone in its development, it has been formed through a long process of debate and is still in a developmental stage.

I myself don't consider Fe to be just social ethics, rather that's a side effect of what Fe is. And I think that in MBTI, it's purpose is even more limited than that. Apply this to all of the functions and you see The Matrix as the string of codes it really is, similar to what you said about 'deeper processes'. I am striving to do the same, but when I see INFJ being labeled onto me, I cannot help but see the limiting nature of typing by traits, or at least that is what seems to be happening. I know I come off as some haughty advocate when I keep stating the word Socionics, but the reason why I think the theory's function interpretations are more accurate at this point in time is because of the psychoanalysis that accompanies it. A type is a type based on permanent psychological dispositions, not situational traits, behaviors and interests.

Kudos to you for developing your own tool, I am not in a place to judge its accuracy or usefulness, but I will say personal observations go a long way in type study.

 

[cheese]

I believe this is a matter of personal detachment from the forum, with continued responsibilities and interests in abstracted elements of it (though perhaps this is more myself than Claver, I can hardly speak for him).

I post entirely in the spirit of "business", and tend to have a goal in mind when posting rather than arbitrarily posting an opinion, regardless of whether the goal is apparent or stated, hence things like acknowledging others or pleasantries are irrelevant as I have no desire to make others think that I like them, regardless of whether I do.
As easy as it would be to place a simple "" and change the entire mood of my post to be more relatable.

I think elements distinct from those of other members have taken precedence for me and my demeanor has modified to meet the goals of my mind, although this is usually the demeanor that rises to the top in any case.

Now I'm wondering what the purpose of responding to this is.

And it's too late, you've already winked at me, even if only in example.

I hope you don't respond to this or I will be very disturbed.