Thread:Patrick.vtap/@comment-27097330-20170125024256/@comment-27097330-20170209000454

High King Ithilion wrote: You guys aren't usinf the MBTI Functions, only the Dichotemies (I/E, N/S, T/F, J/P). You need to use the functions Ni, Ne, Si, Se, Ti, Te, Fi, and Fe. Look these up and  they might help you. Know this here: Each type has two alternating introverted and two extroverted functions, and two judging (F and T) and two percieving (N and S). These go in order of strength. The first two functions determine if you are an intro/extrovert, thinker or feeler, and sensor or intuitor.

INTJ's Function Stack: Ni, Te, Fi, Se

INFJ's Function Stack: Ni, Fe, Ti, Se

INTP's Function Stack: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe Btw Ithilion, if this helps here's an admittedly lengthy but still interesting passage from a book on INTPs I'm reading. It basically sums up why I prefer the 16personalities philosophy, (the better alternative provided at the end,) over MBTI's system.

"Notes for Type Junkies Those of you who are well versed in type theory may be surprised to note that book does not cover "type dynamics," i.e. the introversion or extraversion of one’s Intuition, Sensing, Feeling, and Thinking preferences. The reason type dynamics have been left out is that this portion of the MBTI theory rests on some pretty shaky ground.

Briefly, the problems are these:

1. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of type dynamics, which were described by Myers in 1962. Type dynamics are still purely anecdotal after half a century

2. Almost no research has been done on whether or not there is such as thing as a tertiary or inferior function. Who knows if they exist, or what they might be? At this point their existence is purely speculative, and while there are three different models explaining them, none them have any proof.

3. Cognitive functions appear to rest mainly upon the authority of Myers' original writings, which were based on the authority of Jung's original writings. Although the writings have taken on the status of canon, this does not mean that Jung was right to begin with. In addition, what he wrote was different from what Myers came up with. Historical precedent does not constitute proof of the cognitive functions' existence any more than it can prove that the Earth is flat. The fact that everyone has always believed something does not make it correct.

4. There is not yet any study showing that different functions emerge over the course of one's lifespan, or that the development of these functions leads to a midlife crisis. Therefore these ideas cannot constitute proof for the existence of type dynamics.

5. There have been--and still are--multiple theories about how the cognitive functions are actually arranged, which ones are dominant, how many dominants and auxiliaries there are, and which attitudes are preferred and nonpreferred. The best known model is simply the one that made its way into the official MBTI manual. However, what evidence there is suggests a random arrangement unique to each person—i.e. there appears to be no such thing as dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior. For example, the evidence supports the conclusion that an INTP might have introverted thinking as their dominant and introverted intuition as their auxiliary, while another might have introverted intuition as their dominant and extraverted thinking as their auxiliary—insofar as such constructs can be considered valid at all. No evidence has been found for the typical construct in which Ti > Ne > Si > Fe for type INTP.

6. Nor is there any proof that functions are extraverted or introverted. Reynierse and Harker examined whether dominant functions that are extraverted (i.e. dominant extraverted feeling) turned up more clearly than dominant functions that are introverted (i.e. dominant introverted feeling). If type dynamics theory are real, then those who extravert their feeling function should show it more clearly and obviously than those who introvert it. But no differences were noted by observers; in fact, traits of both extraverted and introverted dominant functions were seen as being just as clear and obvious. The perceived differences, then, are due to plain, simple Introversion and Extraversion, and not to the type dynamics explanation that certain parts of oneself are either introverted or extraverted.

7. But the biggy is this. A recent study set out to determine what exactly each of the cognitive functions consisted of—i.e. the researchers set out to determine a standard, agreed-upon definition of each cognitive function. To do this, they collected 152 descriptive words and phrases used in type literature to describe each cognitive function and its attitude (i.e. thinking introverted, thinking extraverted, intuition introverted, intuition extraverted, etc.). 31 type experts—authors, practitioners, trainers--were called in to review the list and decide which descriptors fit each of the eight function-attitudes.

The experts rated each descriptor's applicability to each function-attitude on a 1 to 5 scale. For 72 of the 152 descriptors, there was an expert consensus that a descriptor primarily matched a unique function attitude. For the rest of the descriptors, it was found that experts tended to assign the descriptors equally to two or more function-attitudes, or else didn't agree on any particular function-attitude at all.

So, how does this apply to type INTP? The INTP/ISTP dominant is believed to be introverted thinking, and 12 descriptors were found that primarily matched Ti.3 The list was as follows: aloof, cold, desires internal logic, detached, in-depth concentration, independent, individualistic, likes mental models, overcomplexifies, pure intellectual, research-minded, and unique use of logic.

So, do these 12 descriptors fit type INTP, as would be expected since Ti is believed to be the INTP's dominant function?

Yes. But as nearly as I can tell, all 12 descriptors match both INTPs and INTJs equally well. Further, only five of the descriptors seem to fit type ISTP (aloof, cold, desires internal logic, independent, and individualistic). Ti is not the dominant of INTJs, yet the descriptors of Ti seem to fit both INTJs and INTPs to a tee. Ti is the dominant of ISTPs, yet the descriptors do not seem to fit type ISTP very well at all. As for Ni, the dominant of INTJs and INFJs, well. The experts agreed on only two descriptors: “Mystical” and “Trusts the unconscious.” Both descriptors had secondary matches with Fi, Ne, and Fe. The descriptors for Ni clearly do not match the INTJ personality very well. Yet Ni, not Ti, is believed to be the dominant of the INTJ.

What can we say about this? Even if one accepts that the cognitive functions exist, the murkiness and paucity of these descriptors must give one pause. The researchers also compared the descriptors found for each cognitive function to data compiled on hundreds of typed people to see if they exhibited the traits said to be characteristic of their cognitive functions. Very little support for the theory of cognitive functions was found. There was no evidence that could not be more clearly, accurately and simply explained by plain type theory without cognitive functions. Occam's razor dictates that the simplest explanation is most likely to be true.

In the absence of both evidence and working definitions, it is hard to think of any logical reason to continue to use the cognitive functions. Ergo, I have left them out of this book.

A Better Alternative

One proposed replacement scheme (which I happen to agree with) drops type dynamics entirely.4 Instead, a person’s letters (i.e. INTP) are ranked in order of “strength.” And what is meant by strength, exactly?

Well, when you took the Myers-Briggs test (or any of the other MBTI knockoffs floating around) you probably noticed that some of your personality traits--i.e., Thinking, Feeling or whatever--were very clear and obvious, i.e. you answered 9/10 questions as a Thinker rather than a Feeler. For other personality traits, perhaps Sensing vs. Intuition, you might have noticed that you were pretty middle-of- the-road in that you didn’t have much preference for either way of functioning. For example, perhaps you only answered 6/10 questions as an Intuitive.

In the traditional way of looking at type theory, it doesn’t matter whether your preference for any particular letter is clear or slight--a letter is a letter is a letter. If you answer 10/10 questions about Introversion vs. Extraversion as an Introvert, then it is considered the same thing as if you had answered only 6/10 questions as an Introvert. In short, the strength of each preference was ignored. However, it turns out that this information has predictive value and can actually be useful in understanding one’s own unique personality.

If we put each of the traits on a spectrum, i.e. E – I, S – N, T – F, and J – P, allowing for shades of grey in the middle rather than just black and white choices, we can get a much clearer picture of an individual's unique personality. “Types” become simplified representations of the spectrum, the way a rainbow is divided up into six colors rather than a million different shades. The goal, then, is to find a scheme that adequately represents this added complexity without becoming too overdetailed to be useful."