Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,223 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Since there's so much confusion on the forum between the dichotomies, Jungian type and the various conceptions of the functions, I want to ask a few questions to see what opinions and perspectives people have, and I want to know how well the theories line up in the way they're supposed to.

1. Which theory does your type label refer to? E.G. if your profile says you are an INFJ, are you saying you have I, N, F and J preferences, you are a Jungian introverted intuitive with auxiliary feeling, You are Ni, Fe, Ti Se according to more modern definitions of the functions, you are a catalyst with a chart-the-course interaction style, or any combination of those things?
2. Do cognitive functions tests and dichotomy tests tend to score you as the same type? I would be very interested in seeing people's results on a functions test and a dichotomy test to compare the two.
3. Which Jungian/MBTI theories and theorists do you like or dislike? Why?

Any comments on this topic that go beyond my questions are also welcome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
In the middle of one of their routines, Lou Costello stopped short and asked Bud Abbott, "What page are you on?" It does feel like that around here.

Abbott replied, "Nevermind what page I'm on." I won't do that to you.

1. INFJ is the closest MBTI match to my current understanding of my own cognitive function layout. I'm definitely not using the dichotomies. I definitely am using Jung's embracing/repressing dynamic. I'm less sure about the MBTI's insistence on four functions with alternating attitudes.


2. No, my test results don't agree but I wouldn't trust them even if they did. To support this position, I'll employ an argumentum ad @hornet: "The tests are crap." However since you asked, these results are fresh off the grill:

Per http://16typequiz.com/quiz.html

Introversion (I): ||||||||||||||| 61.54%
Extroversion (E): |||||||||| 38.46%

Intuition (N): |||||||||||||||||||||||| 96.15%
Sensation (S): | 3.85%

Thinking (T): ||||||||||||||||||||||||| 100%
Feeling (F): 0%

Judging (J): |||||||||||||||| 63.16%
Perceiving (P): ||||||||| 36.84%


Per
Jungian Cognitive Function Quiz

Introverted Intuition (Ni) |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 13.29
Introverted Thinking (Ti) ||||||||||||||||| 7.92
Introverted Feeling (Fi) ||||||||||||||| 6.85
Extroverted Intuition (Ne) |||||||||||||| 6.395
Extroverted Feeling (Fe) |||||| 2.45
Extroverted Thinking (Te) |||||| 2.24
Introverted Sensation (Si) || -0.76
Extroverted Sensation (Se) || -2.43

Most Likely: INFJ
or Second Possibility: INTP
or Third Possibility: INFP


3. I'm drawn most to the old man himself because he emphasizes the fundamentals in ways that later theorists seem to gloss over or ignore entirely. Maybe he's just a product of his time, but Jung's understanding of the cognitive functions carries a certain survival-of-the-fittest violence. I find this appealing and in-line with my own experience. When I choose Ni over Si, it's not like choosing strawberry ice cream over vanilla ice cream. It's like choosing ice cream over rat poison. I don't shrug at Si and say "better luck next time." I knee it in the groin, toss it out the seventh storey window, and charge down the stairs to spit on its bloody corpse. Myers put a happy face on this which I think is also helpful, but I believe we've missed out on something important.
 

·
Heretic
5w4 9w8 2w1 Sx/Sp INTJ ESI
Joined
·
10,836 Posts
I'm drawn most to the old man himself because he emphasizes the fundamentals in ways that later theorists seem to gloss over or ignore entirely. Maybe he's just a product of his time, but Jung's understanding of the cognitive functions carries a certain survival-of-the-fittest violence. I find this appealing and in-line with my own experience. When I choose Ni over Si, it's not like choosing strawberry ice cream over vanilla ice cream. It's like choosing ice cream over rat poison. I don't shrug at Si and say "better luck next time." I knee it in the groin, toss it out the seventh storey window, and charge down the stairs to spit on its bloody corpse. Myers put a happy face on this which I think is also helpful, but I believe we've missed out on something important.
Brilliant! :laughing:
I think Sosionics have the conflict aspect to a certain degree.
Anything that says, you hate each others guts because of this,
and it is really nothing to do about it, doesn't vibe well with todays culture.
Each position chief value is a direct assault on the other positions chief value.
I've experimented with this in real life and the relevant parties really hate on me when I don't filter my output.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,636 Posts
When it comes to preferences I'm an ENFP, but on function tests I score as ENFJ...my dichotomy results are in my siggy, and my functions usually test as something like Se, Ni, Fe, Ne. God knows what that means :happy:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,223 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
When I choose Ni over Si, it's not like choosing strawberry ice cream over vanilla ice cream. It's like choosing ice cream over rat poison. I don't shrug at Si and say "better luck next time." I knee it in the groin, toss it out the seventh storey window, and charge down the stairs to spit on its bloody corpse.
Really? I've never had a negative reaction to a function description that's much stronger than "that doesn't sound much like me". Is it only Si you have that sort of reaction to or do you feel similarly about Ne and Se?
 

·
Heretic
5w4 9w8 2w1 Sx/Sp INTJ ESI
Joined
·
10,836 Posts
Really? I've never had a negative reaction to a function description that's much stronger than "that doesn't sound much like me". Is it only Si you have that sort of reaction to or do you feel similarly about Ne and Se?
There is a big difference between a description and real life encounter. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wolls

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
So what happens when you encounter someone with a function you don't like? Does it have to be their dominant function for you to have that reaction?
Si in someone else is just a difference that I'm learning to appreciate. In fact, I can see an ongoing pattern in my professional life where an ISTJ shows up and keeps the trains running on time. This frees me to do my Ni visionary stuff without having to worry that I might drive us off a cliff. I know that the ISTJ will shout at me long before we're in actual danger.

The negative reaction is to any suggestion that I should operate in an Si-ish way. My mind rebels. I'm not merely not-Si. I'm anti-Si. I think this is completely in line with Jung's model. The functions form triangles of antithesis. Every function has two bitter rivals which deny everything it holds dear. It's not possible to embrace both Ni and Si, or both Ni and Ne. Embracing one necessarily means rejecting the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Octavarium

·
Heretic
5w4 9w8 2w1 Sx/Sp INTJ ESI
Joined
·
10,836 Posts
So what happens when you encounter someone with a function you don't like? Does it have to be their dominant function for you to have that reaction?
As long as someone else is doing (Ti in my case), it doesn't matter if they do it in their own little bubble.
Problem starts when I'm expected to participate.
Like if my ISTP dad does some computer stuff it doesn't bug me before he wants me to see what he has done.
Having to listen to the meaningless dribble about optimization and such drives me nuts.
Having my dad making a spreadsheet for me to do work with on the other hand is just great.
I would use ages and he does it in a matter of minutes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Octavarium

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
As the OP noted, it can be confusing when people talk about cognitive functions but are unclear about which of "the various conceptions of the functions" they're referring to...
@NighTi

In your first post in the thread, you say that you're "drawn most to the old man himself because he emphasizes the fundamentals in ways that later theorists seem to gloss over or ignore entirely," and that "Jung's understanding of the cognitive functions carries a certain survival-of-the-fittest violence" that you find "in-line with my own experience." And you add that "Myers put a happy face on this which I think is also helpful, but I believe we've missed out on something important."

But in your latest post, you indicate that you associate Si with ISTJs. That seems strange to me because, as discussed at length in this post, Jung's Si-dom description bears little resemblance to ISTJs — or, I'd argue, to any other reasonably normal person who ever lived. That's why Myers largely abandoned it, and why virtually all modern MBTI theorists — including function-centric theorists like Thomson and Quenk and Berens — understandably follow Myers rather than Jung when it comes to IS_Js.

In your latest post, discussing relations with your co-workers, you refer to situations where "an ISTJ shows up and keeps the trains running on time" and where an ISTJ acts as a reality-check and helps keep your "visionary" proclivities from "driv[ing] us off a cliff." That's all totally consistent with Myers' conception of Si-doms — who she described as among the most realistic and practical of the types — but it has virtually nothing to do with Jung's Si-dom description.

Jung viewed Si-doms as the least realistic of the types. In describing what he referred to their "reality-alienating subjectivity," Jung said that an Si-dom "has an illusory conception of reality," and that the relation between the actual world and the Si-dom's perceptions of it is "unpredictable and arbitrary" — although "his lack of comparative judgment keeps him wholly unconscious of this fact." And he said that, along with their difficulties understanding both the real world and themselves, Si-doms also rarely succeeded in being able to really communicate what they did understand — or, at least, thought they understood — with other people, with the result that, "as a rule, [the Si-dom] resigns himself to his isolation."

There's a lot more in the linked post. You might want to give it a look (and maybe reread Jung's Si and Si-dom descriptions) and reconsider whether you're really as "drawn to the old man" — in his raw, unMyerized form — as you think.
 

·
Heretic
5w4 9w8 2w1 Sx/Sp INTJ ESI
Joined
·
10,836 Posts
As the OP noted, it can be confusing when people talk about cognitive functions but are unclear about which of "the various conceptions of the functions" they're referring to...

@NighTi

In your first post in the thread, you say that you're "drawn most to the old man himself because he emphasizes the fundamentals in ways that later theorists seem to gloss over or ignore entirely," and that "Jung's understanding of the cognitive functions carries a certain survival-of-the-fittest violence" that you find "in-line with my own experience." And you add that "Myers put a happy face on this which I think is also helpful, but I believe we've missed out on something important."

But in your latest post, you indicate that you associate Si with ISTJs. That seems strange to me because, as discussed at length in this post, Jung's Si-dom description bears little resemblance to ISTJs — or, I'd argue, to any other reasonably normal person who ever lived. That's why Myers largely abandoned it, and why virtually all modern MBTI theorists — including function-centric theorists like Thomson and Quenk and Berens — understandably follow Myers rather than Jung when it comes to IS_Js.

In your latest post, discussing relations with your co-workers, you refer to situations where "an ISTJ shows up and keeps the trains running on time" and where an ISTJ acts as a reality-check and helps keep your "visionary" proclivities from "driv[ing] us off a cliff." That's all totally consistent with Myers' conception of Si-doms — who she described as among the most realistic and practical of the types — but it has virtually nothing to do with Jung's Si-dom description.

Jung viewed Si-doms as the least realistic of the types. In describing what he referred to their "reality-alienating subjectivity," Jung said that an Si-dom "has an illusory conception of reality," and that the relation between the actual world and the Si-dom's perceptions of it is "unpredictable and arbitrary" — although "his lack of comparative judgment keeps him wholly unconscious of this fact." And he said that, along with their difficulties understanding both the real world and themselves, Si-doms also rarely succeeded in being able to really communicate what they did understand — or, at least, thought they understood — with other people, with the result that, "as a rule, [the Si-dom] resigns himself to his isolation."

There's a lot more in the linked post. You might want to give it a look (and maybe reread Jung's Si and Si-dom descriptions) and reconsider whether you're really as "drawn to the old man" — in his raw, unMyerized form — as you think.
I disagree.
In my life both ISTJs and ISFJs really have this "illusory conception of reality".
Sure they act "practical" and "realistic" cause culture has conditioned them to act that way.
But when you try to communicate and really listen to what they say,
it quickly becomes apparent that they don't live in the same world as you.
It really is a world of daemons and deity’s, where everything is infused with spirits and stuff.
They don't say this out loud, but that is what it come down to.
They aren't present.

ISTJs do act more "practical" due to Te wanting to reach goals, but that doesn't change that the world that the goals
are pursued is still very much illusory. ISFJs pursue social goals in a just as much illusory world.
I like to interrogate the ISFJs in my life in particular, cause more often than not, they have no clue even though they say yes.
I say explain what I just said. They will start babbling incoherently about some meaningless tangent.
Communication can be very difficult. I guess ISTJs don't bug me as much due to shared Te-Fi axis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
I disagree.
In my life both ISTJs and ISFJs really have this "illusory conception of reality".
Sure they act "practical" and "realistic" cause culture has conditioned them to act that way.
But when you try to communicate and really listen to what they say,
it quickly becomes apparent that they don't live in the same world as you.
It really is a world of daemons and deity’s, where everything is infused with spirits and stuff.
They don't say this out loud, but that is what it come down to.
They aren't present.

ISTJs do act more "practical" due to Te wanting to reach goals, but that doesn't change that the world that the goals
are pursued is still very much illusory. ISFJs pursue social goals in a just as much illusory world.
I like to interrogate the ISFJs in my life in particular, cause more often than not, they have no clue even though they say yes.
I say explain what I just said. They will start babbling incoherently about some meaningless tangent.
Communication can be very difficult. I guess ISTJs don't bug me as much due to shared Te-Fi axis.
QFT!
I also like to interrogate Si doms, their reasoning for some things ranges from weird, mysterious to batshit crazy but in everyday life you wouldn't notice because they don't stick out and they don't put themselves into the limelight, they are unassuming and painfully practical but it can really be interesting to hear how they perceive the world.

I especially agree about the part with daemons and deities.
 

·
Heretic
5w4 9w8 2w1 Sx/Sp INTJ ESI
Joined
·
10,836 Posts
Luckily I'm not as badly affected by Si as you Ni doms.
To me it is like this game of do as we tell you to.
All Si doms seem obsessed with making sure that my actions correspond with their.
Only close family get to do that since it is too disruptive otherwise.
New Si doms get reality showed in their face gentle, but firmly.

Today an Si dom at work commented about something I did that is perceived as a negative disadvantage.
Of course that is only if you choose to view it as such.
"Doesn't it suck when you have to go trough that?"
I was like... "No it doesn't bother me..."
She was taken aback and tried to find some other thing to be affirm negatively.
Not that negativity is an Si thing, but when they got it, THEY REALLY GOT IT... XD
But it doesn't affect them as badly as it does every one who has to buy into their frame. :-/
Basically she was ISFJ and tried to get me to affirm the Fe in the situation.
Static negative Si with Fe gets me in an uncooperative mood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
Okay...so we have Jung's theory of Si types, and Myer's theory of Si types, and they seem completely different, and...what?!

There has to be an explanation for this. So I came up with one explanation. It may be right, but it may be wrong.
Si-dominants live in the past. Everything they perceive is analyzed by their memories, and then accepted, modified, or rejected. The Si type's 'illusory concept of reality' is that reality will match what they have faced in the past, that what happened before and was good will remain good, and what happened before and was bad will remain bad.
The Si-dominant's demons and deities are his/her memories of situations and objects. He/she sees everything that conflicts with these memories as demons, intent on destroying his/her world (his/her perceptions based on his/her memories). His/her memories are the deities; the gods on which everything must be judged upon.
The Si-dominant, therefore, attempts to convert the external world to what his/her memories state the external world should be. He/she does this either through Te (ISTJ), or Fe (ISFJ). This is why Si types are viewed as traditionalist, loyal, and dependable by systems such as MBTI which do not care to look deeper.

Think of it like this: the Si type lives on a narrow line, attempting to keep the line straight as it always has been, refusing to let it curve even slightly, lest his/her world crumbles into despair. Ni types, trying to detach themselves from all lines, see the mission of the Si type as pointless, self-limiting, and impossible for the Ni type to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,046 Posts
Since there's so much confusion on the forum between the dichotomies, Jungian type and the various conceptions of the functions, I want to ask a few questions to see what opinions and perspectives people have, and I want to know how well the theories line up in the way they're supposed to.

1. Which theory does your type label refer to? E.G. if your profile says you are an INFJ, are you saying you have I, N, F and J preferences, you are a Jungian introverted intuitive with auxiliary feeling, You are Ni, Fe, Ti Se according to more modern definitions of the functions, you are a catalyst with a chart-the-course interaction style, or any combination of those things?
When I refer to myself as an INFJ, it means I have preferences for introversion over extraversion, intuition over sensing, feeling over thinking, and judging over perceiving, which is also another way of saying that I have more things in common (desires, motivations, concerns, ways of looking at the world, preoccupations, approaches to problem solving, preferences, etc.) with people who have a preference for I, N, F, and/or J (and combinations thereof) than I do with people who have preferences for E, S, T, and/or P (and combinations thereof).

I also identify very strongly with many profiles of "Introverted Intuition" individuals, most notably the profile written by Lenore Thomson in her book. But the label of INFJ in general fits me best and is most useful for describing myself and how I compare to other people.

2. Do cognitive functions tests and dichotomy tests tend to score you as the same type? I would be very interested in seeing people's results on a functions test and a dichotomy test to compare the two.
It was a "dichotomy test" that really pegged me as INFJ, and I had experienced some confusion about my own type until @reckful gently suggested I might be an INFJ (I was identifying as ISTJ after deciding that I didn't really fit in with the INTJ's). When he suggested I take the Big 5 inventory over at similarminds, I got these results:

Big Five Test Results, October 2012

Extroversion||||||22%
Orderliness||||||||||||||||68%
Emotional Stability||||||||||32%
Accommodation||||||||||||||||||72%
Inquisitiveness||||||||||||||||||74%

And just for kicks, I took the inventory again just now and got these results:

Extroversion||||12%
Orderliness||||||||||||||||66%
Emotional Stability||||||||||||||56%
Accommodation||||||||||||||||||72%
Inquisitiveness||||||||||||||||||||84%

Pretty consistent, all things considered, and both sets of results correlate with INFJ. (I'm kind of surprised that the inventory pegs me as more introverted now than in October, and intrigued that I'm closer to the middle on the Emotional Stability dimension, which I suspect is related to the fact that I was recently diagnosed with, and am now being treated for, an autoimmune disease whose symptoms include depression and anxiety. I still consider myself more Limbic than Calm, but I'm very interested to see if my treatment influences that aspect of my personality.)

Ok, so now a "function test". I think the one that's most commonly seen on PerC these days is "Keys2Cognition" which is Dario Nardi's brain child. My results from just now:

Cognitive ProcessLevel of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)
extraverted Sensing (Se) ******* (7.5)
unused
introverted Sensing (Si) *********************** (23.8)
limited use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ********************************** (34.9)
good use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) ************************************** (38.9)
excellent use
extraverted Thinking (Te) ****************************** (30.9)
good use
introverted Thinking (Ti) ***************************** (29.6)
average use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) ********************************* (33.8)
good use
introverted Feeling (Fi) *************************************** (39.8)
excellent use

The first thing I want to say is that this format of results is terrible. Very unreadable. What was Nardi thinking?

Let's put this in an ordering:

Fi, Ni, Ne, Fe, Te, Ti, Si, Se
The web page "helpfully" :rolleyes: suggests that I'm INFP, ENFP, or INFJ, in that order, which is ironic in some respects because INFJ's have "totally different functions" compared to INFP's and ENFP's, by most modern accounts. It's also funny, because I have two INFP sisters, and my favorite topic is the ways in which INFP's and INFJ's are different.

Now take a moment and go look again at my Big 5 results. My preferences aren't ambiguous, especially not on the I/E dimension. The fact that Nardi's test would suggest that I'm ENFP before it would suggest that I'm INFJ (or even INTJ) makes me really sour on his test's accuracy, or at least his algorithm's interpretation of the results. My preference for Judging over Perceiving is not ambiguous either, but it is perhaps a bit "closer" than my preference for Introversion.

What's clear is that I have a preference for Feeling over Thinking and a preference for Intuition over Sensing. I'm definitely an NF. And given the fact that the two highest results are introverted functions, it's fair to argue that these results are strongly indicative of INF of some sort. Still, if I went by this function test, I'd be confused at best.

If you want to see more results from the similarminds Big 5 inventory from self-identified INFJ's, you can check out this thread. Spoiler: The results match pretty consistently.

3. Which Jungian/MBTI theories and theorists do you like or dislike? Why?
Myers's Gifts Differing is very well written, very thoughtful, and quietly inspiring. Lenore Thomson has the best take on INJ's and introverted Intuition that I've found, but she seems uncomfortable with her own conceptions of Thinking and Feeling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,427 Posts
Ok, so now a "function test". I think the one that's most commonly seen on PerC these days is "Keys2Cognition" which is Dario Nardi's brain child. My results from just now:

Cognitive ProcessLevel of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)
extraverted Sensing (Se) ******* (7.5)
unused
introverted Sensing (Si) *********************** (23.8)
limited use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ********************************** (34.9)
good use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) ************************************** (38.9)
excellent use
extraverted Thinking (Te) ****************************** (30.9)
good use
introverted Thinking (Ti) ***************************** (29.6)
average use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) ********************************* (33.8)
good use
introverted Feeling (Fi) *************************************** (39.8)
excellent use

The first thing I want to say is that this format of results is terrible. Very unreadable. What was Nardi thinking?

Let's put this in an ordering:

Fi, Ni, Ne, Fe, Te, Ti, Si, Se
The web page "helpfully" :rolleyes: suggests that I'm INFP, ENFP, or INFJ, in that order, which is ironic in some respects because INFJ's have "totally different functions" compared to INFP's and ENFP's, by most modern accounts. It's also funny, because I have two INFP sisters, and my favorite topic is the ways in which INFP's and INFJ's are different.

Myers's Gifts Differing is very well written, very thoughtful, and quietly inspiring. Lenore Thomson has the best take on INJ's and introverted Intuition that I've found, but she seems uncomfortable with her own conceptions of Thinking and Feeling.
One of the problems with Nardi's test, I think, is that anyone with even a reasonably well-defined sense of self can score highly on Fi; look at the way the questions that try to draw that out are worded (and I don't relate to Se at all, which is supposed to be an auxiliary function).

I agree with you about Thomson's book, though; she has an incredibly good description of Ni in there (although I heard somewhere that she's an INTJ, so that might be why it seems to be described so much clearer than some of the other functions). But then I read her description of Ti and it sounds like Ti mixed with Se much more so than Ti+Ne, so I can see how an INTP might not relate to that, either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,046 Posts
One of the problems with Nardi's test, I think, is that anyone with even a reasonably well-defined sense of self can score highly on Fi; look at the way the questions that try to draw that out are worded (and I don't relate to Se at all, which is supposed to be an auxiliary function).
Fair point about the conception of Fi. More than fair, really. As for Se, well, I guess I should reserve judgment.

I agree with you about Thomson's book, though; she has an incredibly good description of Ni in there (although I heard somewhere that she's an INTJ, so that might be why it seems to be described so much clearer than some of the other functions). But then I read her description of Ti and it sounds like Ti mixed with Se much more so than Ti+Ne, so I can see how an INTP might not relate to that, either.
Hmm. It's been a while since I read the Ti chapter, but I seem to recall that my impression was that it was pretty unrelatable, in the sense of, I couldn't imagine ISTP's or INTP's strongly relating to her writing and the manner she portrayed people with Ti, and that I'd be willing to bet that anyone with ITP preferences would have a bone to pick with her, and not just because they are ITP.

She does identify as INTJ, which probably explains why she glorifies ETJ's (to the point that it's just gross) while having a much harsher approach to F types. And why she would have some good insight on INJ's.

There is a lot not to like about Lenore Thomson's profiles, frankly, but as a starting point toward discussion, the book as a whole is very good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
@reckful is a sage (or maybe a soothsayer or very lucky). I'd like to believe he's a sage.

Today, one of my co-workers whom I have pegged as an ISTJ refused to see what was in front of him and relied instead on an impression he had formed last week. Unfortunately for all of us, the impression was mostly false, so right now, he is stuck in introverted non-reality and there's no breaking through.

It's not the first time this has happened. The last time, it took several weeks for him to stop complaining about a problem that no longer existed. We just had to wait for the fire to burn itself out.

I truly do love and appreciate ISTJs. Maddening as it is, I see the "reality-alienating subjectivity" as the opposite side of the same coin that makes them so valuable.

I also have to be fair. There's something precious about an Ni-dominant complaining about an Si-dominant's tenuous grasp on reality.

And yes, I'm still working with a "Myerized" form of Jung's model not because I think it is True but because I currently find it close enough to be useful. That may change. My understanding of this stuff is still pretty fresh and I'm constantly re-thinking and adjusting. This discussion has helped.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,510 Posts
1. Which theory does your type label refer to? E.G. if your profile says you are an INFJ, are you saying you have I, N, F and J preferences, you are a Jungian introverted intuitive with auxiliary feeling, You are Ni, Fe, Ti Se according to more modern definitions of the functions, you are a catalyst with a chart-the-course interaction style, or any combination of those things?
I wear the INTJ label because it represents Ni Te Fi Se as a function order which is pretty much the function order that correctly represents my cognition. I am still waffling a bit whether Te or Fi is my auxiliary, but in retrospect I am beginning to lean more and more towards Te rather than Fi, which means my function order is perfectly represented in the INTJ model.
2. Do cognitive functions tests and dichotomy tests tend to score you as the same type? I would be very interested in seeing people's results on a functions test and a dichotomy test to compare the two.
No. I tend to score as some kind of INxP on function tests. Dichotomy tests always tend to give me INTP because I'm extremely messy as a person.


Cognitive ProcessLevel of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)
extraverted Sensing (Se) ***************** (17.4)
limited use
introverted Sensing (Si) ********** (10.3)
unused
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) **************************************************** (52.2)
excellent use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) **************************** (28.8)
average use
extraverted Thinking (Te) *************************************** (39.6)
excellent use
introverted Thinking (Ti) ******************************************** (44.8)
excellent use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) ************ (12.5)
unused
introverted Feeling (Fi) ********************************* (33.8)
good use


Your Cognitive Functions:
Introverted Intuition (Ni) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 12.945
Introverted Thinking (Ti) |||||||||||||||||||||||| 11.38
Extroverted Intuition (Ne) |||||||||||||||||||| 9.095
Extroverted Thinking (Te) ||||||||||||||||||| 8.85
Introverted Feeling (Fi) ||||| 1.71
Extroverted Feeling (Fe) || -0.48
Extroverted Sensation (Se) || -1.43
Introverted Sensation (Si) |||||| -4.23

3. Which Jungian/MBTI theories and theorists do you like or dislike? Why?
Not overly found of Keirsey although I get what he's doing. I just don't think he's actually tapping into human cognition as he's tapping into persona. Berens is kind of meh, Thomson's descriptions are good on the one hand, her theories wack on the other. I get what Beebe is doing but I don't agree with how he understands consciousness-unconsciousness and the function order he's proposing.

I'm very biased towards socionics, I think it's a great theory although some aspects such as Reinin require a lot of polishing.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top