Personality Cafe banner

21 - 40 of 66 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Did Myers ever provide reasoning for her decision to turn the auxiliary to the opposite direction of the dominant?
I've been meaning to post a long discussion of the auxiliary's attitude for a while, so I took your post as my cue, but I've started a new thread on the subject.

Myers largely rested her case on a sentence in Psychological Types where Jung says the auxiliary function is "in every respect different" from the dominant function. And I'd agree that her interpretation of that sentence would appear to be the best one if all you do is look at that one sentence in isolation. But the trouble is, that interpretation seems inconsistent with way too much else in Psychological Types.

And you'll find a little speculation by me as to Myers' possible motivation in the last spoiler of the linked post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
I'm not claiming that the cognitive functions — or Berens' "Cognitive Styles" — have been definitively disproven. I'm just pointing out that those Cognitive Styles categories (especially) are glaringly inconsistent with the dichotomy-centric perspective I've described — which, as explained in that long INTJforum post, was essentially Myers' perspective, notwithstanding her lip service to some of the type-dynamics stuff — and that I'll be surprised if Berens can actually come up with descriptions that, if properly put to the test, would find INTJs and ESFPs together on one side of the divide and INTPs and ESFJs together on the other side.
Again, they're only inconsistent if you ignore the suppressed (unpreferred) functions and their attitudes. How does N and T play in an SFP compared to an SFJ? How does S and F play out in an NTP compared to an NTJ? That's what Cognitive Styles is based on. (along with the fact, as I've demonstated, and at least one observer noted in watching this, that the two groups will handle even their preferred N and T or S and F differently from each other).

Meanwhile, just curious if you say the same things about Socionics, which developed independently of MBTI and the rest of Western typology, and on one hand, many seem to uphold as better and truer to Jung. It already had developed a system, called quadras, which similarly link type groups by function tandems.

As a quick supplemental point, the functions model that Berens is basing her Cognitive Styles on is unquestionably one that was "contrived" post-Jung and post-Myers. As further discussed in this post, both I and (as Myers acknowledged) most Jung scholars believe that Jung thought the auxiliary function would have the same attitude as the dominant function, not the opposite attitude, making Jung's model for a Ti-dom with an N-aux Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.

But, setting the more controversial auxiliary function aside, virtually everyone agrees that Jung said the tertiary function would have the opposite attitude to the dominant, and that was also Myers' position. And the official MBTI folks have always refused to take a position on that issue.

So Berens' position that, as one example, INTPs and INFJs share "Aligning" characteristics by virtue of the fact that they're both "Ti/Fe" types is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and isn't a perspective that's supported by the official MBTI establishment.
Did Myers ever provide reasoning for her decision to turn the auxiliary to the opposite direction of the dominant?
I've been meaning to post a long discussion of the auxiliary's attitude for a while, so I took your post as my cue, but I've started a new thread on the subject.

Myers largely rested her case on a sentence in Psychological Types where Jung says the auxiliary function is "in every respect different" from the dominant function. And I'd agree that her interpretation of that sentence would appear to be the best one if all you do is look at that one sentence in isolation. But the trouble is, that interpretation seems inconsistent with way too much else in Psychological Types.

And you'll find a little speculation by me as to Myers' possible motivation in the last spoiler of the linked post.
It doesn't even do any good to get into the debate of which attitudes Jung held each function to have, when first of all, Jung was so unclear a lot of times, and we've gone on about this for years here, with different interpreters saying different things, and no resolution ever being arrived at. If he's "NiTi", you even had those saying he was ISTP or INFJ, with a strong tertiary. (But then he mentions a definite preference for Thinking and iNtuition, so that calls those into question).
Then, the notion that he held to a dominant and "two auxiliaries". I actually have begun to see some sense in this, and it goes along well with Beebe's representation of the dominant and inferior as the [vertical] "spine", and the auxiliary and tertiary as the [horizontal] "arms", and you even see the diagram in other sources besides Beebe.

The most likely reason the auxiliary was deemed to be opposite attitude was for the sake of balance (just as it being the opposite kind of function. We have to both perceive and judge, and so we have to deal with both the internal and external worlds).

But second and most importantly, it's really all moot, when your objection is that functions are illegitimate to begin with, and only dichotomies valid.
I'm actually still working on the other thread I started recently, on function definitions, and I've for a while been seeing it better to separate functions from attitudes, and see the ego choosing one orientation and a dominant function independently (so then the separated functions then are like undivided dichotomies), and then other complexes within the psyche that pair together functions and attitudes.
So the "auxiliary" is simply the function and orientation chosen by the Parental Complex (or "Caretaker", whose purpose is to support ourselves and others with), which will tend to be the next to develop after the ego's dominant. So that is really the basis of dynamic type theory. The other six remaining function/attitude combinations (which are all reflections of the two identified so far from the ego splitting them off in chosing the first two) will all become connected with other complexes mirroring the first two complexes (i.e. the tertiary is oriented by the "Child" complex, which mirrors the "Parent", and the associated function mirrors the auxiliary, etc.)

Apart from these complexes (which you can actually think of as miniature senses of "I" alongside the main ego), the functions are undifferentiated. You just have a mixed together mass of data from which an ego structure separates out what it prefers to pay attention to (which is what "concretistic" and "abstracting" originally meant, before Myers and Keirsey lingo associated "concrete" and "abstract" specifically with the Sensing and iNtuition functions).

So I believe that looking at it in terms of different complexes is the solution to this debate. You can in a way sum up a "type" as an ego/caretaker combination, which covers our relation to self, and to others, the internal and external words, and information gathering and decision-making. That's the purpose of typology. To help us understand ourselves and [our relation to] others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
Did Myers ever provide reasoning for her decision to turn the auxiliary to the opposite direction of the dominant?
Here is a topic I made arguing her logic. I included an unspoiled excerpt from Gifts Differing in the spoiler at the top of the post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Abraxas

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,222 Posts
It seems that, to make the cognitive styles model work, Berens would have to abandon the dichotomies and just say that INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se and INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe, even if the Ti Ne type tests J and the Ni Te type tests P. On the other hand, Berens might be putting types that have opposite characteristics that are mirror images of each other into the same category, perhaps on the basis that they have the same motivations or thought processes, which is what the Enneagram does. Let's take attitude towards authority as an example, and here are a few short Kroeger and Thuesen quotes to illustrate my point:

Kroeger and Thuesen said:
It is the nature of all ENTPs to test the limits of any system or person, especially traditional ones.
Kroeger and Thuesen said:
One ongoing dilemma for [ESTPs] is that they are often oblivious to established norms and procedures. As a result, they can be in continual trouble with those in authority. Some other types are specifically anti-authority and enjoy testing its legitimacy -- not the ESTP. This type is simply oblivious to authority.
Kroeger and Thuesen said:
As both child and adult, ISFJs may be given to streaks of stubbornness that seem entirely out of character. But even that stubbornness will give way if authority, role definition ("I'm the teacher and I want it done this way"), or some other sense of responsibility can be appealed to. ISFJs respect authority and respond accordingly.
Do those quotes suggest that ENTPs and ISFJs have something in common that neither shares with ESTPs? Isn't there a case to be argued that ENTPs and ISFJs and, perhaps, all of the SJ and NP types, tend to pay attention to authority and tradition, though they react to it in opposite ways? After all, both are basing their actions on what the authority says. You've got to know the rules before you can break them, right? Could that then be contrasted with SPs and NJs, who tend to pay less attention to authority? In other words, couldn't SJs and NPs be put together in the "people who have strong reactions to authority" category? Could we even take it further and say both tend to test authority? Does that go some way towards meeting your challenge, @reckful?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Do those quotes suggest that ENTPs and ISFJs have something in common that neither shares with ESTPs? Isn't there a case to be argued that ENTPs and ISFJs and, perhaps, all of the SJ and NP types, tend to pay attention to authority and tradition, though they react to it in opposite ways? After all, both are basing their actions on what the authority says. You've got to know the rules before you can break them, right? Could that then be contrasted with SPs and NJs, who tend to pay less attention to authority? In other words, couldn't SJs and NPs be put together in the "people who have strong reactions to authority" category? Could we even take it further and say both tend to test authority? Does that go some way towards meeting your challenge, @reckful?
Well, it's a theory... :tongue:

I'm not persuaded by that example. I don't think a typical ENTP "pays attention to the rules" (so they "can break them") to a greater degree than a typical NJ. I'd say a typical anti-authoritarian NP is mainly concerned with doing their own thing (whether it breaks any rules or not) rather than specifically wanting to break rules. I don't mean to say that there aren't people who may (at times, anyway) delight in breaking rules partly for the sake of breaking rules, but I'd say the SPs and the NPs are the closest cousins in that regard — and that focusing on the fact that you have to "know the rules" to break them (and saying, hey, that makes NPs like those rule-knowing SJs) rather than focusing on the fact that the SJs are the likeliest rule-followers and NPs are (maybe) the likeliest rule-breakers is focusing on a (relatively superficial) tail at the expense of the dog.

And I certainly don't think a typical SJ has a greater tendency to "test authority" than a typical NJ or SP. (Less so, I'd say.)

In one of my earlier posts, I suggested that "attitude toward change is one of those cases where two of the dichotomies can be viewed as contributing, each in its own way, to an aspect of personality, ... with SJs being the ultimate traditionalists (temperamentally over-pessimistic about change, and tending to over-value the way things are and/or 'always have been'), NPs being the ultimate change agents (temperamentally over-optimistic about change, and prone to err on the side of having too little respect for established ways), and SPs and NJs being somewhere in between." And it seems to me that you could do the same thing with that duality that you've done with "reactions to authority" and say that SJs and NPs are the types "who have strong reactions to change" — buuut, since their strong reactions are basically opposite reactions, I don't think it makes sense to say they belong on the same side of a separate change-related duality where SJs and NPs are the kindred folks (because of the strength of their reactions to change) and the SPs and NJs belong on the other side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
Discussion Starter #26
Here are some more examples of how these terms come in to play:


Ne, dealing with stuff not seen right before you like seeing an object, and imagining what could be done with it in terms of changing it (or even through makinng analogies) ends up engaging in more of a trial-and-error process of changing things. Se is not so much trial and error (or necessarily changing systems), because it's about "knowing" what actually can be done, from what's clearly at hand.
You can see there where the "knowing" part sounds almost like Ni, and of course, the two work together, as "Realizing Awareness", where Ne and Si work together as "Inquiring Awareness" (which "trial and error" is a basically form of)!
See how these names fit so perfectly?


Se types "know" from paying more attention to the sensory detail before them, where I, as an Ne type, tend to gloss over things, looking for the overall meaning. So it's totally unconscious, and we may wonder how they do it. I realize this from playing Words With Friends, and my toughest opponents seem to be Realizing types who can easily see what can be done with the letters they have and what's already on the board, where I'm totally lost, (and end up thinking for sure I'm getting gipped with useless letters). I sometimes find there's these good words that I couldn't quite put my finger on, because I'm looking more at the intangible goal of "winning" (or at least catching up), and the multiple unseen possibilities (using the value increasing squares) than what I have in my arsenal.


Obviously, "Ordering" sounds so perennially Te (And Fi would go along with it), while "Aligning" sounds like what Ti does in refining its judgments (and Fe would go along with that). Even though all judgments technically "order", I guess these terms lean more to the T aspect of it, and Te orders externally and logically, and that's what we come to associate with "ordering".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
Discussion Starter #27

·
Beer Guardian
ENTP 5w6 So/Sx 584 ILE Honorary INTJ
Joined
·
15,418 Posts
Just what we need, more convoluted function theories without any evidence to support them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Teen Rose

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
What other kind of evidence is wanted? (They do give examples of the dynamics at play).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
What other kind of evidence is wanted? (They do give examples of the dynamics at play).
Is that a serious question? The same kind of psychometically-respectable evidence that currently backs the Big Five and the (dichotomy-centric) MBTI.

Berens and Montoya claim there's something called "Fi" that (1) FPs use/exhibit first and foremost, but that — because of their non-Jungian (FWIW) and utterly unsupported (in terms of respectable studies/evidence) function model — (2) TJs also significantly use/exhibit, while (3) TPs and FJs don't.

Here's the description of Fi from that Berens article you linked to:

Berens said:
Valuing; considering importance and worth; reviewing for incongruity; evaluating something based on the truths on which it is based; clarifying values to achieve accord; deciding if something is of significance and worth standing up for. Stay true to how you really are.
What kind of evidence is wanted, Eric? You do a study involving a sufficiently large group of different types to reach statistical significance, and you produce results that indicate that the ESTJs (for example) tend to use/exhibit what you claim to be "Fi" to a degree that the INFJs (for example) don't.

You say Berens and Montoya "do give examples of the dynamics at play" — but you're surely aware that somebody can come up with cherry-picked anecdotal evidence to back just about any theoretical notion. Jung himself discussed that issue in Psychological Types. Focusing on Ti-doms specifically, he noted that some people prioritized theories over facts, and were inclined to pay attention to "facts" only to the extent that they supported their theories — while tending to ignore any contrary facts. As Jung put it, "facts are collected as evidence for a theory, never for their own sake," with the result that this kind of approach "shows a dangerous tendency to force the facts into the shape of its image, or to ignore them altogether in order to give fantasy free play."

Decades of statistics involving large pools of mixed MBTI types have established that the MBTI (viewed from a dichotomy-centric perspective) has respectable levels of what's known in the psychometrics biz as "validity" — which basically refers to statistically significant correlations between type and other things. And guess what, Eric? In cases where MBTI statistics show notably strong correlations between, say, being a TJ and something else — e.g., career choices — you know what types tends to show up on the opposite side? Common sense might lead someone to guess the FPs, but common sense isn't always right. In this case, though, it turns out that good old common sense beats out the theoretical fantasies of Linda Berens and Chris Montoya. Where statistically significant correlations show up for particular preference combinations (e.g., TJs), and you plot the types along the applicable spectrum with respect to whatever characteristic is involved, what you virtually always find (in my experience) is the TJs at one end, the FPs at the other end, and the TPs and FJs in between.

By contrast, if Berens and Montoya are onto something significant with their so-called "Cognitive Styles," they ought to be able to review the decades of data that already exist correlating types with innumerable other things and show that, in a significant number of those data pools — and with respect to things for which "Te/Fi vs. Ti/Fe" (or, to use Berens and Montoya's new terms, "Ordering Assessments vs. Aligning Assessments") is the main contributing type factor — the results show that the Orchestrating™ and Authenticating™ types (TJs and FPs, with Te/Fi) tend to group together on one side of the relevant divide and the Enhancing™ and Customizing™ types (FJs and TPs, with Ti/Fe) tend to group together on the other side.

And I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that kind of respectable evidential analysis from Berens and Montoya, and neither should you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
Discussion Starter #31 (Edited)
Is that a serious question? The same kind of psychometically-respectable evidence that currently backs the Big Five and the (dichotomy-centric) MBTI.

Berens and Montoya claim there's something called "Fi" that (1) FPs use/exhibit first and foremost, but that — because of their non-Jungian (FWIW) and utterly unsupported (in terms of respectable studies/evidence) function model — (2) TJs also significantly use/exhibit, while (3) TPs and FJs don't.

Here's the description of Fi from that Berens article you linked to:

What kind of evidence is wanted, Eric? You do a study involving a sufficiently large group of different types to reach statistical significance, and you produce results that indicate that the ESTJs (for example) tend to use/exhibit what you claim to be "Fi" to a degree that the INFJs (for example) don't.

You say Berens and Montoya "do give examples of the dynamics at play" — but you're surely aware that somebody can come up with cherry-picked anecdotal evidence to back just about any theoretical notion. Jung himself discussed that issue in Psychological Types. Focusing on Ti-doms specifically, he noted that some people prioritized theories over facts, and were inclined to pay attention to "facts" only to the extent that they supported their theories — while tending to ignore any contrary facts. As Jung put it, "facts are collected as evidence for a theory, never for their own sake," with the result that this kind of approach "shows a dangerous tendency to force the facts into the shape of its image, or to ignore them altogether in order to give fantasy free play."

Decades of statistics involving large pools of mixed MBTI types have established that the MBTI (viewed from a dichotomy-centric perspective) has respectable levels of what's known in the psychometrics biz as "validity" — which basically refers to statistically significant correlations between type and other things. And guess what, Eric? In cases where MBTI statistics show notably strong correlations between, say, being a TJ and something else — e.g., career choices — you know what types tends to show up on the opposite side? Common sense might lead someone to guess the FPs, but common sense isn't always right. In this case, though, it turns out that good old common sense beats out the theoretical fantasies of Linda Berens and Chris Montoya. Where statistically significant correlations show up for particular preference combinations (e.g., TJs), and you plot the types along the applicable spectrum with respect to whatever characteristic is involved, what you virtually always find (in my experience) is the TJs at one end, the FPs at the other end, and the TPs and FJs in between.

By contrast, if Berens and Montoya are onto something significant with their so-called "Cognitive Styles," they ought to be able to review the decades of data that already exist correlating types with innumerable other things and show that, in a significant number of those data pools — and with respect to things for which "Te/Fi vs. Ti/Fe" (or, to use Berens and Montoya's new terms, "Ordering Assessments vs. Aligning Assessments") is the main contributing type factor — the results show that the Orchestrating™ and Authenticating™ types (TJs and FPs, with Te/Fi) tend to group together on one side of the relevant divide and the Enhancing™ and Customizing™ types (FJs and TPs, with Ti/Fe) tend to group together on the other side.

And I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that kind of respectable evidential analysis from Berens and Montoya, and neither should you.
As an "Aligning" (rather than "Ordering") type, I know I don't depend on statistics much for a theoretical idea, or just a way of organizing concepts. (Dependence on statistics are externally oriented Te. And perhaps that's why Berens and Montya don't either, though some of her colleagues, are TJ's).
Because what I always used to hear was that MBTI had no "empirical" evidence either, and that was why Big Five gained more of some sort of respect. Yet now, you're linking MBTI on the side of Big Five in having this evidence. Then, there's MBTI vs Jung. And then Jung or even typology altogether vs the rest of psychology, with people claiming it's all unfounded.
Apparently different people have different interpretations of what constitutes valid "empirical" evidence. So I don't bother with that at all. It ends up (in practice) too 'neither here nor there', despite how everyone using it holds it up as absolute fact (almost like gravity).
I used to hear how "taste tests" claimed Burger King was better than McDonald's; Sprite better than 7-Up; etc. But what did all of that mean? No one ever came and asked me. They only take a small "sample" and generalize it to the whole population.

You even cite Jung's description of the pertainent function to this effect. Here's the evidence right before you!
Only, the world-view is not "dangerous". It may have its drawbacks, but then so does the TePi view (which likewise references its internal perceptions as the ultimate standard, for their own sake and tries to force the outer world into fitting an inner vision that only differs from "fantasy" in being more "closed").

Statistics are usually apart of psychometrics, but it's not the basis of the theories; it's just something to add validity.
It again is just a way to categorize personality traits that occur in interactions.

As I had explained before; this right here is one glaring example of the difference in tandem worldviews, even though we share three dichotomies.

FP is so different because of the directing/informing and structure/motive dimension (connecting to Interaction Style and temperament). Yet, their worldview would tend to lean more to empirical logic, or at least they would be more willing to submit to it when so presented.
As Berens said, this is all a holistic concept, and not something you can break into separate opposing parts. The parts are lookign at the same things through a different angle (And "looking at things from different angles" is another Ti description of theirs). In their affective and conative behavior (both of which dealing with the "output" so to speak), TJ's and FP's are opposite. But in their cognitive processing (starting witht he "input"), there is a lot of similarity (though still prioritized in an opposite fashion).

The weakness in the concept is the wording of some of those descriptions they use for the "processes", such as Fi="valuing". It's true that everyone values; I say it is more a property of the ego, rather than a particular function). I even thought of this as I posted the links, but that's the way they express them, and I only wanted to share the additional information. I've long noted this, especially when another associate of theirs once claimed I was "valuing" something, and therefore had to be an FP. That's one reason why I've been trying to come up with better root definitions of the functions, in another thread now.
Fi deals with "the proper relationships between [personal] subjects from an internal standard". That may lead a person to focus on "values", but it's not necessarily "valuing" itself.

And official MBTI sources, though starting with dichotomies, do use the function-attitudes. They're in the MBTI Manual, and the other Quenk and others' books. So you see where those opposite dichotomy groups will use the same functions, though in greater or lesser ways.

One of the things I like about these models is that you can slice them many different ways to look at different things. I'm not here putting down Big five or MBTI dichotomies or anything else and saying functions, and the Berens' models are the infallible "truth". So I don't understand what's the problem. It's just another way of looking at type, and we already know how you feel about it. It's not taking away from anything else, but offering another insight (and new terms to help improve converstation) for those who may have already stumbled with the dichotomies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
Discussion Starter #32

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
Discussion Starter #34
The tandem table on the second link, p7, is where the "Awareness/Assessments" tandem names (Inquiring, Realizing, Ordering, Aligning) were derived from, but here, they've omitted the names. I don't know whether this means they're rethinking them, or it's an older document from before they named them.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
258 Posts
"Published by the APTi Bulletin of Psychological Type, September, 2014"

Articles

It's possible they submitted the article before they came up with the names, or maybe they are in the processing of changing them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
Discussion Starter #36
OK. The one I saw with the names, was from last year. But she did say something about some of it being tentative.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,388 Posts
It doesn't even do any good to get into the debate of which attitudes Jung held each function to have, when first of all, Jung was so unclear a lot of times, and we've gone on about this for years here, with different interpreters saying different things, and no resolution ever being arrived at.
First of all, I tremendously respect the hard work you're putting into developing MBTI models and pushing the theory further to explain more and offer more productive results.

But, on this specific thing, I have to disagree. I think nothing could be more relevant to the new model Berens is suggesting, and you've presented in your OP.

If Myers was systemically wrong in her interpretation of the attitudes of the auxiliary functions, then that could potentially explain a tremendous amount of the dissonance that many people experience between functions and dichotomies. Furthermore, an interpretation of Jung giving the auxiliary attitudes as being the same as the attitude of their paired dominant and inferior function (i.e., conscious introversion = introverted dominant and auxiliary; unconscious extraversion = extraverted inferior and auxiliary) goes a long way in explaining this dissonance.

For example, I myself have long grappled with confusion as to why I never score very well on the J/P dichotomy, and upon arriving here at PerC, I was urged to delve into the functions and extensively study Jung. So, I did. And upon my prior arrival at the same conclusions, based on the much of the same information, and due to the fact that I experience the same conflict over my own type that Jung himself expresses in his famous BBC interview c. 1959, what I came up with is essentially what @reckful presents in this thread.

It is easy to see where that J/P dissonance comes from within a Jungian function perspective. Ti-Ni and Ni-Ti would be a very difficult thing to pry apart without looking closely at the inferior function, which would necessarily be difficult for a person to do to themselves, since that is precisely the point of a function being defined as "inferior" - they really are unconscious of it, so they don't even know they are doing it in an inferior way. Their perception of themselves where the inferior is concerned would be grossly distorted by their ego, but since their inferior function is really the crucial thing that is going to make it apparent whether or not a person favors Ti-Ni or Ni-Ti, then that person arrives as a kind of dilemma insofar as their ability to type themselves correctly. And a sad one, I feel, since all the popular function models of our time support Myers' interpretation, which I absolutely could not disagree with more.

I am not trying to take reckful's side here, because I'm not convinced that your work is useless or doomed to failure, per se, but I do believe that as long as it clings to Myers' faulty interpretation of the auxiliary attitudes, it may inherit the same systemic mistake Myers made, and thus there is going to be a lot of tail chasing and going in circles trying to refine it and refine it and refine it, which I believe could be avoided.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
258 Posts
Since I haven't been able to type myself using the typical MBTI/type dynamics model (I'd feel a greater comfort level with NeFeTiSi), not being sure whether the model is incorrect or that I can't see myself clearly, I'm leaving the new method open to either show it is correct or for the method to be workable even if it doesn't correlate with MBTI.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
258 Posts
I finished the course with Enhancing first, then Authenticating, Customizing and Orchestrating. That would put me in the ENTP category, and while I don't feel that I'm enough like ENTP to say it's my type, per their definition I do clearly Enhance throughout my life. If the question "what do I do" rather than "what am I like" is asked, the answer is easier to see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
Discussion Starter #40
Just like “Ordering/Aligning” leans towards the T attitude (as I mentioned on the previous page), I’m seeing more and more that “Realizing/Inquiring” leans toward the N attitude.

“Inquiring” is the perfect name for the Ne/Si tandem of NP’s and SJ’s. I’ve noticed what what we do a lot is ask questions. Lots of questions, sometimes. My wife is always asking me questions about everything, and I’m always asking other people questions. What I had noted is that some NJ’s I’ve communicated with sometimes get put off by my questions, and [in written communication] begin glossing over them.

I ask questions to gain a sense of who the person is (in a more personal “friendship” interaction), or what their beliefs are (in a more intellectual sharing of ideas). I have noticed that they don’t ask that much. They apparentely form all the picture of me they need from what they already see on the table.

This realization comes in conjunction with my continuing to refine the definitions of the functions.

All perception deals in what we could call “imagery”. (See
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/399402-taking-again-top-root-defiitions-functions-3.html#post20517242)

Sensing is about the “material” world, and iNtuition is about the “ideational” world. Extraverted iNtuition deals in ideational images from the environment. What “could be”, discovered from outside of the observing subject (the world of “objects”). Like comparing one pattern to another, which I do all the time. Introverted Sensing deals with images of the material world that have been “stored” individually (in memory), which we then use to compare current sensation with. Notice, both Ne and Si end up “comparing” things. I could have usd that term to name the tandem.
This comparing is what leads them to need to seek more ideational data (possibilities, contexts, etc.) from the outside. The material data is safely stored within, but all material or “concrete” information needs some sort of “abstract” framework or “story” behind it.

We tend to assume that the way we process information, others do also, but apparently, NJ’s and SP’s don’t depend of question asking as much. Of course, everyone asks questions, but I’m seeing that for Inquiring Awareness, it is our main way of taking in information, while for Realizing Awareness, the sort of information they deem important to begin with is different.
What they take in from the environment (the world of “objects”) is the material data, through extraverted Sensing, where they just take whatever comes as it is. What they take from the individual world of the “subject” is the ideational data, which are images that come from within, via introverted iNtuition, where information just comes to them, up from the individual unconscious. This is used to inform judgments, but neither perception function deals so much in comparison. Both just take what comes. So likewise, there is not as much need to to have to request information from the outside. Hence, “Realizing” is also the perfect term for this tandem, as “Inquiring” is for the other.
 
21 - 40 of 66 Posts
Top