[Morto Che Parla]

true? false?

I found myself undergoing this change some time ago. I once was extremely long-winded, obsessed with covering every aspect and complete internal logical correctness. Typcial, terse, NTJ posts, riled me, and I though I was extremely clever. Actually, I was just a student with too much free time.

Now I find NTJ posts much mroe readable than the typical NTP post. I don't care anymore about covering anything other than the carefully targetted "leverage point". and I don't care if my argument is imperfect, the logic is just a means to argue what I want, not an end in itself.

So: is there truth in my hypothesis?

 

[Morto Che Parla]

Nope.

Look at the cognitive functions.

Depends what you mean. One view of MBTI is that you can test "function strengths", rank them, and get an MBTI type from that. So you can be, say, Te, Ne, Si, Ti, Fe, Se in function order.

Another view is to view function order holistically, with the functions not as tools, but as expressions of a personality, closely tied to one another, not possible to analyze in seperation from the personality as a whole, manifestations of a "philosophical orientation".

I prefer the 2nd approach. However, it leads onto the question: what happens to "function order" when the fundamental motivations of the personality change? And we're back to square 1. Hence my question.

 

[Morto Che Parla]

Sounds like you just developped your Te better

To the point where I prefer to use it?

At any rate, your title is just....no.

I'm a fan of "Simplify the rhyme just to amplify the noise". (Now which philosopher said that?)

 

[Morto Che Parla]

^^^ This is an interesting point above. It would suggest that you accept my statement has some validity assuming the person does said job properly.

 

[Morto Che Parla]

Maybe I'm relying on shadow functions and I've put together some Frankenstein personality that does cromulent work without my oversight

On second thoughts this could be me! Just call me Dr.

 

[Morto Che Parla]

I'd say that is pretty much correct. If "9 to 5" means "developing a routine to achieve goals" (closure) then that holds

.

Yes.

If, on the other hand, "9 to 5" means "just following orders" then no

No, I agree. Obviously a person can hold down a routine-based job without at all internalizing it, and in this case their personality doesn't change. But I was more referring to the phenomenon of people's personalities changing as they age and take on responsibility - an older and much more well known concept than MBTI.

 

[Morto Che Parla]

I think this one opinion here pretty much ended the point of the thread.

If by "ended" you mean "validated", then I'll agree.:tongue: