Personality Cafe banner

41 - 60 of 66 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Interesting stuff! This system actually reminds me of one of the CelebrityTypes "Determining Function Axes" articles. They did a similar thing in which they identified the similarities between types that have both function axes in common.

Their break down is like this:

NTJs/SFPs: Bayesian Committers
NTPs/SFJs: Frequentist Connectors
NFPs/STJs: Divergent Perceivers
STPs/NFJs: Convergent Perceivers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
Discussion Starter #42
Never realized someone else had those groups (other than the Socionics quadras). I had never given that site much mind, as I was not sure about many of the celebrity typings.
This, I believe, is Michael Pierce. I've been hearing his name a lot recently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
Don't understand why a year old thread had to get bumped up all of a sudden. The so-called "function axes" or "tandem" theory seem to get rejected recently, gradually more and more by lots of forumites here.

I've personally never seen anyone who says "Help! I'm not sure if I'm INFP or ESTJ" (apparently they are both in the exact same category here) Such phrase just doesn't seem likely to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
Discussion Starter #44
I've been focusing on the individual tandems (rather than the funn two-tandem Intentional Styles), because you do get many people who know they may prefer one tandem, but are not sure about the other. Like people stuggling between NFJ and NTP. So it's good for them to be able to identify as an "Aligning" type (rather than the clunky and largely inaccurate "FeTi user").
Most people who are sure of both tandems end up knowing which side they are on both.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
Over the past few months, I've noticed a pattern here - that those who subscribe to the so-called "function axes" or "tandem" theory, are the victims (many times voluntary..) of black/white logic. Those who doubt this theory are mostly the ones who try to see the spectrum in between the types, the "grey."

This is because "function axes" or "tandem" theory successfully eliminates the existence of middle groups, and reinforces the idea that one HAS TO belong to a single type only.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Never realized someone else had those groups (other than the Socionics quadras). I had never given that site much mind, as I was not sure about many of the celebrity typings.
This, I believe, is Michael Pierce. I've been hearing his name a lot recently.
Yeah, I too was once skeptical. Their typings can be pretty jarring, but after reading the info on their site and learning about their conception of typology, I definitely agree with most of the ones I thought made no sense initially.

But yeah, Michael Pierce has a lot of his video transcripts featured on the site, but that particular article was written by others who write for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
Discussion Starter #47
Over the past few months, I've noticed a pattern here - that those who subscribe to the so-called "function axes" or "tandem" theory, are the victims (many times voluntary..) of black/white logic. Those who doubt this theory are mostly the ones who try to see the spectrum in between the types, the "grey."

This is because "function axes" or "tandem" theory successfully eliminates the existence of middle groups, and reinforces the idea that one HAS TO belong to a single type only.
The reason why it seems black and white is because these functions are but the way we divide reality. When we are embedded in spacetime, there is either forward or backward, or past and future. "inbetween" is where we are, but (in space, at least) we are looking from that central position to one way or the other.
And while we all do all of these functional perspectives, they become associated with ego states or "complexes", and the type-defining complexes are simply the ones closest to the ego. (i.e. the "hero" and the "parent"). If someone seems to be more "grey", then perhaps they are in the grip of other complexes (such as the "inferior"). This is what will allow for more flexibility with people's behavior.

Yeah, I too was once skeptical. Their typings can be pretty jarring, but after reading the info on their site and learning about their conception of typology, I definitely agree with most of the ones I thought made no sense initially.

But yeah, Michael Pierce has a lot of his video transcripts featured on the site, but that particular article was written by others who write for it.
I think the site used to be only those celebrity typings, but now it looks like he's added a lot more. Looks interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,964 Posts
This is fantastic! I jotted the main points down in my personal notebook on psychology/typology for easy reference.

Thank you for sharing, @Eric B! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eric B

·
Registered
Joined
·
371 Posts
This unnecessary discussion reminds me of what i read - immature NTs are the most irrational, illogical and stupid paradoxically. They go overboard beyond the obvious logic and make their own personalised ''logics''. Iam an extreme Infp and i can easily tell my process of Fi - Ne- Si - Te as i visualise it as i do. I always knew i preferred human feelings much more than logic unlike most others, even more than other feeling based people. When i saw MBTI and cognitive functions, it only assured what i've been experiencing but clarified that iam not abnormal and others are not evil like i thought. Myers clearly got what Jung said and i agree with her. We Infps can get what a person actually means almost instinctively. We INFPs can go deepest in any subject and reach the core. Jung's assistants which u didn't even state got it wrong. Most are on the same boat doesn't make it correct.

Also how can u use the same names if their attitudes are different?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,121 Posts
I'm happy that these dichotomies got names, and I think they are far less useful than the MBTI ones.

What do I share in common with SFJs that I don't with others? Nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,942 Posts
While I love the direction that they're taking here I'm skeptical of it working the way they intended. Even if we presuppose that these groupings are actually a thing (which I do, but I know not everyone does), the way that Fe (for example) exhibits in a higher position is completely different from lower positions. So while I do think this model is closer to the truth, it's probably a lot less useful for typing in this form since an ISFP and an ENTJ come off completely differently even though they share the exact same functions.

It's a good step, but I think it needs some work to 'get there'.

I do actually agree that we need new words to talk about these things too, so I like that, but I'm not sure if the chosen words are resonant enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
Discussion Starter #53
Yes, the fact that the different position changes the way the function manifests is an important point, that actually answers some of the objections to this theory, because people are expecting the behavior of two comparative types (such as NTP and SFJ) to be exactly the same in order for the theory to be correct, but that's not what the theory is saying at all. It's about perspectives; not (directly) behavior.

So an INTP's Fe will be inferior, which will cone off in a more "primitive" form, but the key similarity to an SFJ is that it will still nevertheless be turning toward an external standard in determining good or bad. Dominant and auxiliary Fe will be more mature and proactive in "merging with the environment" of people, and then putting it to use in responding to their needs or desires. tertiary and inferior Fe will still feel this pull, but Ti (their own standard of impersonal "true or false") will be more important, and so it will be a tug of war between sticking with the preferred logic, or giving in to Fe, and the maturity level will determine how balanced they are.
This will be different from TJ's and FP's, for whom the sense of what's good or desired will be inferred from within, and logic dictated from the environment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,121 Posts
@Eric B the problem is I have an internal standard of determining good and bad, and an internal standard of logic too. Both of these seem to be in conflict with the normal ESFJ that I run into.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
Discussion Starter #55
My wife is that way too. Dominant Fe is "backed up" by its shadow, Fi, and this apparently can be shaped by personal experience ("nurture", on top of "nature"), so it may seem like you can have both (and really, the same with INTP's appearing to "use Te" a lot as well).
So the ego main drive will be external, but when this is obstructed, then an internal standard will rise to back it up (it's all still there, in everyone, in the background), and part of it may also be that everything our egos do has an "internal" component (otherwise, it wouldn't be our ego), and so that can make the Feeling judgment seem [technically] "internal" as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,121 Posts
@Eric B nah I'm pretty sure it's just internal, just like my other 3 functions too. If anything, my F is more internal than my T.

Thankfully, the MBTI test exists which was able to give me a solid letters type, cause I never would've been able to figure it out with this function magic.

See: What's a cognitive function? (link)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
Discussion Starter #57
I'm sorry; but for some reason I kept thinking you were claiming to be ESFJ. (So that's what I was responding to). You're INTP and were saying your feeling doesn't match ESFJ.

For an INTP, for one thing, the inferior is the least conscious of the "ego-syntonic" functions, and then using BTi theory (as popularized by Lenore Thomson), Fi is our "right brain alternative", and so may come up more than Fe. (The "stack" is not about relative strength, as your other thread assumes, but rather tied to the complexes; i.e. archetypes, and can have other "uses" outside of them).
So a lot of INTP's seem to notice their Fi use more than Fe (and so many end up struggling on the T/F pole), and if often comes up high in cognitive process tests, while Fe often comes out "weakest"; and in the case of the brain hemisphere theory, Fi is simply filling in for its similar, fellow introverted judging function, Ti when it can't solve a problem. (This later gets replaced more by the tertiary function, carried by the "child" complex, which also bears the dominant attitude).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,121 Posts
@Eric B I think I lean "right-brained" (if not, basically in the middle) on "brain hemisphere" theory (which is pretty much disproven anyway) and Fi as well as Ti seem "ego-syntonic", not just "strong" or whatever. If there's actually one which seems like it is more at the core of my ego it'd be the Fi probably. You could say what the model says, according to Thomson or whoever, but it doesn't seem to fit.

I really would like to know how I would go about typing myself in accordance with this theory when nothing fits. However I would assume I should start with throwing my MBTI test result out the window which is how I arrived at INTP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
Discussion Starter #59
Well, what makes you think Fi is so "core" to your ego? (and keep in mind, it's not simply about "liking" things or "knowing what you want" as it often gets generalized into.

Or might you be INFP (with Ti as right brain alternate)?

If you took the official MBTI, then do you remember what your T/F score was? (Which is actually the "preference clarity index", and not even necessarily about "strength"). There are various reasons the preference may be unclear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,121 Posts
Well, what makes you think Fi is so "core" to your ego? (and keep in mind, it's not simply about "liking" things or "knowing what you want" as it often gets generalized into.
Because everything can be sort of traced back to my personal sense of value and significance. From my earliest years I always felt like the world was unfair and wrong, like "how could people even think this is okay?" But at the same time a lot of this was logically developed. So I think that logic and F stuff is sort of intertwined in my "introverted ego" where I am not likely to care much at all what the group thinks.

I intentionally reached out to defend and make friends with the kids who were being picked on and bullied by others, it's like my natural instinctive way to take an anti-group stance when it concerns "what's right".

I'm mentioning early years because generally in function models you're supposed to show your first function first. But I was like a combination of all of Fi/Ti/Ni and I could make a case for any of them being up there dominating my ego.
If you took the official MBTI, then do you remember what your T/F score was? (Which is actually the "preference clarity index", and not even necessarily about "strength"). There are various reasons the preference may be unclear.
I think I was like 100% I, 95% N, 71% T, 73% P. But I don't know why MBTI scores would correlate very high with whatever these function models are.

And I think INFP is pretty much equally bad from that function model because it ignores the Ti and possible T preference. And my ego seems to lack any strong sensing components, being more Ni > Ne >>> Si > Se.
 
41 - 60 of 66 Posts
Top