Joined
·
693 Posts
What are some of the main differences between TJ's and FJ's? Such as with processing, decision-making, etc.? Since both have the J function I would assume both strive for some sort of order. Any ideas?
Yea. I mean the entire theory revolves around J/P. The function attitudes in MBTI are tested as I/E, S/N, F/T, and J/P with J/P really being the deciding factor as to what your dominant function is. So lets say you score E,S,F MBTI determines if you are ESFJ (Fe-dom) or ESFP (Se-dom) based on where your J/P score lands. The idea here is that if you are strongly J we can infer you have a strong Te or Fe preference (as they define it), This type of inference is probably okay in the case of people who score strongly J or P (which is a dubious assumption to begin with but nevertheless...) but what happens when you get the 50/50 J/P? Or you're an ESFP with a lot of Te? Is the person an ESFJ or ESFP? We can't know (now we have to start looking at the other scores like if their N is really low or S is really high), but you can see how someone could easily mistype themselves if they just go off J/P (sometimes really mistype as ESFJ and ESFP have no common functions). You get people asking "am I ISFP or ISFJ" which on its face sounds silly. The two types are nothing alike (same with INFP and INFJ), but if you are just looking at the dichotomies it would seem that you could be an ISFx or INFx, nonsensical as this would actually be.so I suppose the J/P dichotomy in MBTI(as with the other dichotomies) is written with a lot of inductive reasoning, then?
Well, how can this be avoided? The strong points about resolving it around J/P in this manner is J side include Te, Fe, Si, Ni as Dominant and Auxiliary for all J-types, reversed P side includes Ti, Fi, Se, Ne Dominant and Auxiliary also for all P-types, and changing your type letters to the opposite is your function set upside down.Yea. I mean the entire theory revolves around J/P. The function attitudes in MBTI are tested as I/E, S/N, F/T, and J/P with J/P really being the deciding factor as to what your dominant function is. So lets say you score E,S,F MBTI determines if you are ESFJ (Fe-dom) or ESFP (Se-dom) based on where your J/P score lands. The idea here is that if you are strongly J we can infer you have a strong Te or Fe preference (as they define it), This type of inference is probably okay in the case of people who score strongly J or P (which is a dubious assumption to begin with but nevertheless...) but what happens when you get the 50/50 J/P? Or you're an ESFP with a lot of Te? Is the person an ESFJ or ESFP? We can't know (now we have to start looking at the other scores like if their N is really low or S is really high), but you can see how someone could easily mistype themselves if they just go off J/P (sometimes really mistype as ESFJ and ESFP have no common functions). You get people asking "am I ISFP or ISFJ" which on its face sounds silly. The two types are nothing alike (same with INFP and INFJ), but if you are just looking at the dichotomies it would seem that you could be an ISFx or INFx, nonsensical as this would actually be.
Not if we're talking about a test. Because just testing the functions out right is more straightforward, but this requires that the functions are being properly defined and measured (many times they are not) and we still have to infer often what someone's type is (a lot of people just have general preferences for and against certain functions like strong overall Intuition and weak Sensation, which leads us to believe the person is an intuitive, but we may not know which flavor). Trying to measure someone's personality like this on a test is an inherently flawed process. The only reason I think MBTI is a little less successful is because they attempt to use behavior as a justification for type (judging/perceiving) and to me that is fine if you're just trying to figure out what role someone might be good at in the workplace (which is what MBTI really does) but if you are really trying to figure out how someone thinks, you're gonna have big problems trying to tie type to behavior in this way. Because like I said all Ni or Si-doms are not closure-seeking in real life (despite them all being J's in MBTI). So by adding this dimension we are forcing people into roles that fit the theory but may not actually accurately represent who the person really is. A person could be typed as a Feeling perceiver (say ISFP) when typologically the person is really a Si-dom ISFJ, but may not fit the Guardian or closure-seeking J mold that MBTI lays out. MBTI sort of forces you to play by their rules.Well, how can this be avoided? The strong points about resolving it around J/P in this manner is J side include Te, Fe, Si, Ni as Dominant and Auxiliary for all J-types, reversed P side includes Ti, Fi, Se, Ne Dominant and Auxiliary also for all P-types, and changing your type letters to the opposite is your function set upside down.
I don't disagree to your critique per se, but is there a better way to do it?
IxxJs are generally closure-seeking when it comes to external standards/obligations but it is not their top priority compared to ExxJs. Grouping IxxJs and ExxJs makes sense if the types are fairly balanced, if they are not they will be pretty different from each other(the same with the IxxPs and ExxPs). Like IxxPs present a fairly open and exploratory attitude(Pe) but they have highly refined personal principles that they will not bend easily(Ji), it's kind of the same with ExxPs but they put more priority on exploring their environments/having many different interesting experiences as possible(Pe) and less on individuality(Ji).Not if we're talking about a test. Because just testing the functions out right is more straightforward, but this requires that the functions are being properly defined and measured (many times they are not) and we still have to infer often what someone's type is (a lot of people just have general preferences for and against certain functions like strong overall Intuition and weak Sensation, which leads us to believe the person is an intuitive, but we may not know which flavor). Trying to measure someone's personality like this on a test is an inherently flawed process. The only reason I think MBTI is a little less successful is because they attempt to use behavior as a justification for type (judging/perceiving) and to me that is fine if you're just trying to figure out what role someone might be good at in the workplace (which is what MBTI really does) but if you are really trying to figure out how someone thinks, you're gonna have big problems trying to tie type to behavior in this way. Because like I said all Ni or Si-doms are not closure-seeking in real life (despite them all being J's in MBTI). So by adding this dimension we are forcing people into roles that fit the theory but may not actually accurately represent who the person really is. A person could be typed as a Feeling perceiver (say ISFP) when typologically the person is really a Si-dom ISFJ, but may not fit the Guardian or closure-seeking J mold that MBTI lays out. MBTI sort of forces you to play by their rules.
It all rests on the dominant function. Ones with the same dominant cognitive function are very similar, ones without are not.Wow these are all good responses. What does an "extroverted judger" look like? How is this different from a perceiver, then? Does this mean FJ's and TJ's are not at all that different, and most of the difference would depend on whether they are an Ni or Si?
I just ignore J/P since it's very hard to reconcile with cognitive functions in a way that doesn't make assumptions about somebody.Okay, this makes more sense. Judgers have to have "closure" so to speak, but TJ's use something along the lines of scientific method in order to reach the closure?
Same here! I'd love to see it just disappear altogether. People get way too caught up on it, while it's just very trivial in the scheme of typology and worthless in psychology.I just ignore J/P since it's very hard to reconcile with cognitive functions in a way that doesn't make assumptions about somebody.
They have many things in common e.g. something that makes them keeping their lifes more in order and balance than Ps... "meeting deadlines" etc like the test describe J and P.How is this different from a perceiver, then? Does this mean FJ's and TJ's are not at all that different, and most of the difference would depend on whether they are an Ni or Si?
I love that you managed to bring bloodshed into cognitive function explanation...it makes it so much more exciting!That is the gulf between dominant and inferior. There is no way those can coexist. Well, actually, there is, but it doesn't last very long and involves a lot of blood and one of them dead by the end.
This is what makes it difficult for me to determine what Si is at it's core, I can't seem to find anyone comparing/contrasting it with other functions in controlled situations. *sad panda*Introverted perceiving uses internal ideas to understand and see:
Ni: Meaning, stuff not covered by S (yeah, I'm not good with describing Ni lol)
Si: What something is