Personality Cafe banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,385 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So, MBTI is about what you prefer, rather than what you're good at.
(Explained in

And MBTI is built upon the work of Jung, meaning that it's built up from the functions.

But if my preference is, say, Te and Se, what type would that make me?

If you're thinking that your type is related to the strength of the function, this is not that big of a question. But when it comes to preferences, it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,374 Posts
It's questionable whether the MBTI can be viewed as being "built up from the functions" - certainly, as I understand it, Jungian theories were a key aspect in its development, but not necessarily the only foundation. But that's beside the point, I guess. I've not watched the video presented in the OP, but my understanding of a phrase like "strength of the function" is that it refers to the relative predominance of that function in the psyche - for a function to be "strong" is for it to be "strongly preferred". Since functions are not behaviours, but predispositions, the very concept of being "good at" a function doesn't make a great deal of sense (excepting under definitions which might make sense of such a phrase). You would expect that a person who "uses" a particular function more often is significantly more likely to be more adept at the sort of things typically associated with that function - a Ti-dom is likely to be more logically adept, an Se-dom more kinaesthetically adept, &c. - but, sure, that connection isn't a necessary one; it makes conceptual sense that a person could have a psychological preference that manifested in traits uncommon for someone with that preference.

So, with the above issues sorted, the question is simply "what type would a person who preferred Te and Se be?", in which case I would say that gets at a deficiency contained within most forms of the theory discussed on this site, namely the poorly justified exclusion of theoretically plausible permutations. Notionally, so the argument goes, a person must have one introverted and one extraverted function in their most dominant two, for the sake of "balance" - this, I believe, is an undue conflation of the descriptive with the normative (it is not claimed that everybody is "balanced", surely?), and doesn't really work in either sense anyway (how is being entirely extraverted with a perceiving function balanced out by having a judging function be entirely introverted?). I don't see that there is a strong theoretical basis for excluding the possibility of a person having, say, Te and Se preferences - this thread covers a lot of the discussion points on that issue.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top