Personality Cafe banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I mean just that.

I have concluded that a person's appearance:
E vs. I, N vs. S, F vs. T, P vs. J- is too deceiving.

The best way to type is through function use!

And questions like, "Am I warm hearted or cool headed?",
"Am I always on-time or often late?", "Am I more feet on
the ground or head in the clouds?", and "Am I the life
of the party?" etc. are poor indicators.

Everything should be directed at how a person thinks (aka
'function use'). Such as, "Most of the time when I am thinking
to myself I think of things like:"

1. Can I understand an underlying pattern to all physical reality
in order to control/influence my life/surroundings- or other people's
lives/surroundings? I know I should not rely too much on physical
proof, or else threaten my ability to find a new, possibly hidden,
answer- Ni

2. Do I remember everything I ought to? The slightest detail allowed
to escape my record could threaten the success of my control/influence
of my life/surroundings- other people's lives/surroundings. I know I should
not over-theorize, or else threaten my grasp of reality and mistake
my own creativity for the truth- Si

3. What pattern is evolving around me, right now, as we speak- and
can I get involved in it, think fast enough to seize the opportunity of
it and influence how it unfolds?- Ne

4. What literal things are happening around me, right now, and how
can I enjoy them/deal with them in the most realistic, expedient way?
If you stay on your toes, and respond to things appropriately, the future
will fall into its correct place ALL BY ITSELF. - Se

5. Truth is all-important, even over usefulness. Truth often can not be
reached through general consensus, as it is sometimes counter-intuitive,
and requires independent, never-ending personal analysis. Everything
may fit into an overall pattern, but that remains to be seen. Perhaps
the pattern is not predictable or all-inclusive. - Ti

6. Truth is irrelevant to pragmatism. Human beings do not live forever,
and so we have to make decisions NOW to the best of our ability,
despite never knowing whether something is the actual 'truth'. We can
test things as a group to see what will work with relative consistency.
As creative as the independent mind is, it is not as rational as the
combined thought of many testers. This is called science!- Te

7. I place the highest value on the emotional experience of my life.
Human beings only live so long, and I do not want to waste my life
focusing on things that are not actually important to me. Other people
may not understand this, but that doesn't matter. I know what I want
out of life, and that is where I put all my energy and focus. - Fi

8. I place the highest value on the emotional experiences of all people.
My emotional experience is no more important that the experiences of
others- in fact, I can become so focused on the importance of everyone's
experience that I sometimes find myself no longer aware of my own needs,
because I can feel everyone's needs. Human beings need to focus on
building a brighter future for themselves because there is too much
misunderstanding, abuse and pain in this world. I put all my
energy and focus into trying to help build this future. - Fe


Okay... a bit disjointed, I know! I have trouble with that.

Also, I'm sure my understanding of all the functions is not perfect-
hopefully it is not so flawed that it is not useful. I'm sure everyone
(who can stand to read a post this long) will have something to add.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,402 Posts
I think the internal questions of X dominants are more influenced by the inferior function. For Si dominants, "Do I have the right idea about it?" is a question we ask ourselves. Ne gives us a nagging feeling that we might not understand things fully.

I feel like your description of Si is too... aware of itself? Too doubting that reality is right, sounding a bit like Ni in that respect. Reality is reality. That pencil is a chewed up pencil. It is our idea of a chewed up pencil.

"I often think about the nature of things. Like how warmth is welcoming and comforting. Or how justice shows its goodness in cold ways. It is brutal, it is impartial, and yet it is always right."
-Philosophical Si In Action
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I think the internal questions of X dominants are more influenced by the inferior function. For Si dominants, "Do I have the right idea about it?" is a question we ask ourselves. Ne gives us a nagging feeling that we might not understand things fully.
That's a great idea.

And a coincidence- because identifying some inferior
Se behaviors in myself helped to confirm Ni preference.

I will think about this more!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Fantastic idea, I couldn't emphasize it enough! Here's how I relate to what @Owfin's talking about via inferior Se:

I tend to always question whether or not I'm seeing what something really is - I've done this so unconsciously before I even knew about MBTI and whatnot, that it's sort of haunting to think back on (it's where my self-confidence takes an almost palpable nose-dive). Seeing outside of my individualized intuitive perspective into the true nature of something - seeing what's there and making sure that's what's I'm really seeing - the question I ask it "Am I really seeing what I think I'm seeing?" My personal mantra is basically - "Nothing ever is exactly what it seems - nor is it ever exactly what it is." This embodies the relationship dominant Ni and inferior Se have together in my mind, fundamentally. Huge doubt spirals that make me obsessive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
@leadintea

You're an INFP. The results are close enough to it anyhow for this to be a reasonable deduction, since the tests have a lot of question bias in them that might've skewed your results. The dominant function is most important in determining your type anyhow, so if Fi's your #1 function listed, then this is most likely right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: leadintea

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,800 Posts
I I agree that fuctions are more important than letters. I hope you have a better reception than i did when i brought it up, i almost got eaten alive ;)

Anyhow, the description of Fi is very accurate in my opinion. Nice write up.

The only thing i would add to Ne is angles. Ne sees everything from so many different angles. This is why Ne can appear so contradicting at times, because as data is coming in from different angles, we can change our perspective about things quickly. Until all the data and information is revealed, only then can we come to a conclusion that we see as satisfying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,545 Posts
Hey, great thread idea. I was planning to start one like this one day...but I forgot. Oh well.

If we do happen to embrace this functions before letters concept, then I think we shouldn't rely too much on the order of functions. Because doesn't that eventually lead you to getting a type with 4 letters? I think it's not likely for people to get their functions in the same order as the type they are supposed to be.

For example, mine almost always comes out as Ni-Ti-Te-etc. This doesn't have to automatically make me an INTJ because my Ni doesn't have to be supplemented by my Te. It means that since Ni is my highest used function, it is ideal that I use Te to supplement it (because my Fe is low :p) making INTJ my ideal type rather than my type itself. It means I presently use Ni and Ti the most. There is no type with two introverted functions as dom and aux so it is healthier for me to use my Te. I think function order shouldn't play any more role than that.

So if someone asks what your functions are I think it is better to say the functions you test highest with. For me I would have to say Ni-Ti then; working towards Ni-Te because that is preferable. (Of course if your functions are in order already then it's fine)

The INFP poster in this case has Fi-Fe-Ne. Wouldn't that mean there is a clash between external and internal value systems? Therefore it would probably be better to say that he should work on using Ne more, rather than classifying him as an INFP straight away.

I think it's not practical to classify nearly everyone with just 16 types. Rather, the type model should be something we should all work towards. It should be a model for development, rather than a model for classification.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Hey, great thread idea. I was planning to start one like this one day...but I forgot. Oh well.

If we do happen to embrace this functions before letters concept, then I think we shouldn't rely too much on the order of functions. Because doesn't that eventually lead you to getting a type with 4 letters? I think it's not likely for people to get their functions in the same order as the type they are supposed to be.
I mean pick your FIRST function. Ex: if you know Ni is your heavy hitter, so you're
INXJ. As how to figure out the next part, I would probably focus on: NF vs.
NT thinking. Such as, "Am I an idealist? Is it more important to me to know
how things ought to be?" - NF. Or, "Is it more important to me to just try
and see how things are?" NT. (Best 'distinguish between' example I could come
up with.)

This would work for pretty much everybody. Say you decided your lead
function is Te- ESTJ or ENTJ. Then you just ask yourself- "Am I an SJ?
Or an NT?"

You could even do this by process of elimination. "Well, I KNOW I'm not
an NT...so SJ." As example.

For example, mine almost always comes out as Ni-Ti-Te-etc. This doesn't have to automatically make me an INTJ because my Ni doesn't have to be supplemented by my Te. It means that since Ni is my highest used function, it is ideal that I use Te to supplement it (because my Fe is low :p) making INTJ my ideal type rather than my type itself. It means I presently use Ni and Ti the most. There is no type with two introverted functions as dom and aux so it is healthier for me to use my Te. I think function order shouldn't play any more role than that.
Ideally, this would be so. But it is almost the DEFINITION of a system that
some things will be marginalized for the sake of ease-of-use and efficiency!

Granted, that is also why we get these annoying stereotypes floating
around in here so much, though. Oversimplification. Guess the real trick
is deciding where the line is. "Is this too simple and restrictive?" or,
"Is this too broad, and hard to use?"

The INFP poster in this case has Fi-Fe-Ne. Wouldn't that mean there is a clash between external and internal value systems? Therefore it would probably be better to say that he should work on using Ne more, rather than classifying him as an INFP straight away.
If you know Fi is your top function- you should definitely focus on Fi.
If you believe you use Fe the most secondly, then any clashes between
your Fi and Fe will resolve themselves as you focus on developing your Fi.

Also, I don't believe there would be as many clashes as one would think.
I think that Fi could easily share Fe values, just depends on if the Fi user
personally believes in them. Say, for example, a Fi user thoroughly believes
that Jesus did the right thing, he stayed true to his beliefs. Fi believing
in Fe. (So maybe it was Fi all along- or even the other way around.)

Also, if you believe personality theory, After you decide your top function,
it is important to use your secondary function to support your first one,
so you want a function there that will be GOOD at 'checking behind' your
first function. That's the reason why the MBTI is set up in alternating
introverted and extroverted traits. Because you can not solely rely on
the inside or outside world and expect to remain an effective person.

I think it's not practical to classify nearly everyone with just 16 types. Rather, the type model should be something we should all work towards. It should be a model for development, rather than a model for classification.
I think that's all it is: practical! The MBTI is sacrificing some accuracy to make the
system practical (ease-of-use, efficiency).

But then again, that is all it is. A system, a blunt tool. Not reality.

If we were to try to come up with a system that actually reflected
the reality of individuals- it would be so complex, it wouldn't even be
a system anymore. It'd be like real life. You'd have to put nearly as
much (if not ACTUALLY) as much time into studying the 'system' as
you would into just getting to know every person on an individual
basis.

Though, it is possible that the MBTI is still a bit too simple. Depends
on where you draw the line between accuracy and efficiency. (As before
mentioned.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,545 Posts
Ideally, this would be so. But it is almost the DEFINITION of a system that
some things will be marginalized for the sake of ease-of-use and efficiency!

Granted, that is also why we get these annoying stereotypes floating
around in here so much, though. Oversimplification. Guess the real trick
is deciding where the line is. "Is this too simple and restrictive?" or,
"Is this too broad, and hard to use?"

If you know Fi is your top function- you should definitely focus on Fi.
If you believe you use Fe the most secondly, then any clashes between
your Fi and Fe will resolve themselves as you focus on developing your Fi.

Also, I don't believe there would be as many clashes as one would think.
I think that Fi could easily share Fe values, just depends on if the Fi user
personally believes in them. Say, for example, a Fi user thoroughly believes
that Jesus did the right thing, he stayed true to his beliefs. Fi believing
in Fe. (So maybe it was Fi all along- or even the other way around.)

Also, if you believe personality theory, After you decide your top function,
it is important to use your secondary function to support your first one,
so you want a function there that will be GOOD at 'checking behind' your
first function. That's the reason why the MBTI is set up in alternating
introverted and extroverted traits. Because you can not solely rely on
the inside or outside world and expect to remain an effective person.

I think that's all it is: practical! The MBTI is sacrificing some accuracy to make the
system practical (ease-of-use, efficiency).

But then again, that is all it is. A system, a blunt tool. Not reality.

If we were to try to come up with a system that actually reflected
the reality of individuals- it would be so complex, it wouldn't even be
a system anymore. It'd be like real life. You'd have to put nearly as
much (if not ACTUALLY) as much time into studying the 'system' as
you would into just getting to know every person on an individual
basis.

Though, it is possible that the MBTI is still a bit too simple. Depends
on where you draw the line between accuracy and efficiency. (As before
mentioned.)
I think I should have said 'accurate' rather than 'practical'. My mistake.

But yes, it is merely another system. Which means it has it's own limitations.

Exactly. So a person who has two introverted/extroverted as dom and aux is not effective. That was my point. To become effective he/she should start to develop an extroverted/introverted function as aux.

If it is Fi-Fe-Ne, you should develop your Ne, no? Rather than Fi. Though developing Fi will create a larger distinction between feeling preferences, it still means Ne is tertiary. It is better to develop Ne so the person achieves the ideal INFP model.

I understand what you say. It is not possible to develop a very complex system for everything otherwise there will ultimately be no system at all. But that's what our Ni tries to do. We just have to rely on inaccurate systems at times and carry on. Our life is what we make of it. You are an INTJ if you believe you are.

That's all it is. A system offers people a pole to which they can tie their beliefs. Every belief needs approval. A system offers that.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top