Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 74 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,892 Posts
You can't have two extroverted perception functions, or two introverted perception functions.
You need an introverted one and an extroverted one to operate.

So there are two possibilities : Ne/Si and Ni/Se
Not only that, but the mixture makes sense...

You perceive the external world concretely, but the connections between things abstractly, or you perceive the external world abstractly, but the connections between things concretely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
You can't have two extroverted perception functions, or two introverted perception functions.
You need an introverted one and an extroverted one to operate.

So there are two possibilities : Ne/Si and Ni/Se
Not only that, but the mixture makes sense...

You perceive the external world concretely, but the connections between things abstractly, or you perceive the external world abstractly, but the connections between things concretely.
What..no. How?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
Whatever your Dom function is, your inferior will be the opposite.
So what happens when your function stack "fails" to align with your type's "model" stack? For example, I claim Fi-Ne-Ti-Si-Te-Ni-Fe-Se (and I test as Fi-Ti-Ne-Si-Te-Ni-Fe-Se :eek:hno: ) which puts my dom-inferior pair as Fi-Si ...or does it?

I suspect some would answer that this makes me an unhealthy INFP. I suspect I was in fact unhealthy when I was younger, when a Fi-Ti loop (or would that be some sort of "supergrip"?) seems to have been likely. But these days, Fi-Ne-Ti get along swimmingly, and -Si-Te can tag along too if they play nice. :tongue:

Of course, all eight are "there," and I'm not worried. But I would be interested in the conclusions, however preliminary, of anyone who subscribes to both the archtypes and the validity of "atypical" stacks, and has studied both areas in an attempt to reconcile them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,165 Posts
So what happens when your function stack "fails" to align with your type's "model" stack? For example, I claim Fi-Ne-Ti-Si-Te-Ni-Fe-Se (and I test as Fi-Ti-Ne-Si-Te-Ni-Fe-Se :eek:hno: ) which puts my dom-inferior pair as Fi-Si ...or does it?

I suspect some would answer that this makes me an unhealthy INFP. I suspect I was in fact unhealthy when I was younger, when a Fi-Ti loop (or would that be some sort of "supergrip"?) seems to have been likely. But these days, Fi-Ne-Ti get along swimmingly, and -Si-Te can tag along too if they play nice. :tongue:

Of course, all eight are "there," and I'm not worried. But I would be interested in the conclusions, however preliminary, of anyone who subscribes to both the archtypes and the validity of "atypical" stacks, and has studied both areas in an attempt to reconcile them.

That's just a multiple choice online test you get that from. Understanding the functions is much deeper than that. I would wager that most people who tested something on those tests are something else actually.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,165 Posts
So do Ne and Si work together?
Yes , the INTP, INFP, ESFJ, and ESTJ are examples of Ne-Si working together. In these types those functions are not dominant but they are not inferior or repressed either. The INTP for example has Ne as secondary and Si as a third function which means they tend to work together to give the INTP a concrete picture that allows for possibilities. The ESTJ has a pretty good sense of detail but can also see possibilities and alternative methods which may be viable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
That's just a multiple choice online test you get that from. Understanding the functions is much deeper than that. I would wager that most people who tested something on those tests are something else actually.
So you believe what's-his-name (help me out, @reckful ?) got the "model" stacks right for each type, and every person (or every healthy person) is one of those, and the CF tests are wrong for most people?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,954 Posts
So what happens when your function stack "fails" to align with your type's "model" stack? For example, I claim Fi-Ne-Ti-Si-Te-Ni-Fe-Se (and I test as Fi-Ti-Ne-Si-Te-Ni-Fe-Se :eek:hno: ) which puts my dom-inferior pair as Fi-Si ...or does it?

I suspect some would answer that this makes me an unhealthy INFP. I suspect I was in fact unhealthy when I was younger, when a Fi-Ti loop (or would that be some sort of "supergrip"?) seems to have been likely. But these days, Fi-Ne-Ti get along swimmingly, and -Si-Te can tag along too if they play nice. :tongue:

Of course, all eight are "there," and I'm not worried. But I would be interested in the conclusions, however preliminary, of anyone who subscribes to both the archtypes and the validity of "atypical" stacks, and has studied both areas in an attempt to reconcile them.
Don't put stock in tests. Also, the loop business seems really weak as a theory. I would not put stock in that either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,954 Posts
Holdin' on loosely to many competing ideas at the moment. I only wish I had more hands!
Explain. These models don't really deviate due to the nature of them. They stack that way because they have to for things to make sense. It is like that jar metaphor people use for using your time wisely. The big rocks go in first, then the little rocks, then the sand. If the sand were to be put in first, the jar would not be correctly filled. Imagine your Dom to be the big rocks and the sand to be the inferior.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,165 Posts
So you believe what's-his-name (help me out, @reckful ?) got the "model" stacks right for each type, and every person (or every healthy person) is one of those, and the CF tests are wrong for most people?
I'm not saying that they are outright wrong. They may be right but how would you know without really understanding the functions and how they apply to you? You might know but then again you might just accept the test results without really understanding Jungian typology.

I found a pretty good description for INFP. Tell me if this describes you accurately.

Quiet, friendly, sensitive, and kind. Enjoy the present moment, what's going on around them. Like to have their own space and to work within their own time frame. Loyal and committed to their values and to people who are important to them. Dislike disagreements and conflicts, do not force their opinions or values on others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Verity3

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
I'm not saying that they are outright wrong. They may be right but how would you know without really understanding the functions and how they apply to you? You might know but then again you might just accept the test results without really understanding Jungian typology.
I don't know. I have a good feeling about Fi-Ne-Ti because I picked them out of a list of descriptions without referring back to my test results. I think the test I took overemphasizes thinking, or minimizes intuition, or both somehow. But I don't have a deep understanding of the functions, because I've been studying them for only a little over a month. That's why I asked for opinions from those who have studied it more. I appreciate your perspective as someone who emphasizes the model stacks, but if there were anyone out there who might have managed to harmonize the models + archtypes with divergent stacks somehow ...well, that would be downright fascinating to me :D

I found a pretty good description for INFP. Tell me if this describes you accurately.

Quiet, friendly, sensitive, and kind. Enjoy the present moment, what's going on around them. Like to have their own space and to work within their own time frame. Loyal and committed to their values and to people who are important to them. Dislike disagreements and conflicts, do not force their opinions or values on others.
That's me, all right. Or at least, that's how I believe myself to be.

Explain. These models don't really deviate due to the nature of them.
Unless. They. DO.

They stack that way because they have to for things to make sense. It is like that jar metaphor people use for using your time wisely. The big rocks go in first, then the little rocks, then the sand. If the sand were to be put in first, the jar would not be correctly filled. Imagine your Dom to be the big rocks and the sand to be the inferior.
Maybe things aren't supposed to make as much sense as you expect. Maybe people are even more complicated than sixteen little boxes, or two-hundred-odd boxes, will allow. Maybe they're not, but maybe. (Highly complex order is not chaos. It's just very, very, VERY complicated.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,165 Posts
I don't know. I have a good feeling about Fi-Ne-Ti because I picked them out of a list of descriptions without referring back to my test results. I think the test I took overemphasizes thinking, or minimizes intuition, or both somehow. But I don't have a deep understanding of the functions, because I've been studying them for only a little over a month. That's why I asked for opinions from those who have studied it more. I appreciate your perspective as someone who emphasizes the model stacks, but if there were anyone out there who might have managed to harmonize the models + archtypes with divergent stacks somehow ...well, that would be downright fascinating to me :D
Well it's fantastic you're looking for more perspectives :happy: , but what do you know about Fi and how it relates to your other functions? If someone said , you know , actually I think you are an ISFP how would you describe yourself as an INFP?


That's me, all right. Or at least, that's how I believe myself to be.
I feel guilty because I wasn't honest about the description. That's actually a description of an ISFP. The point of that slight of hand was to show that these online descriptions really do not say much and that anyone can psychologically convince themselves that a general description applies to them just like the horoscope :p. This is why understanding the real essence of Jungian typology is so important if this type of psychology interests you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
Well it's fantastic you're looking for more perspectives :happy: , but what do you know about Fi and how it relates to your other functions? If someone said , you know , actually I think you are an ISFP how would you describe yourself as an INFP?
I'd say no, ISFPs are awesome at immersing themselves in the physical world and letting their Se inform their Fi. Whereas I value the world of ideas and just need to give myself permission to let my imagination run wild.

I feel guilty
No you don't, you king of troll! :tongue:

because I wasn't honest about the description. That's actually a description of an ISFP. The point of that slight of hand was to show that these online descriptions really do not say much and that anyone can psychologically convince themselves that a general description applies to them just like the horoscope :p. This is why understanding the real essence of Jungian typology is so important if this type of psychology interests you.
Well, at least you didn't try to make me pick between INFP and INTP. Because if I do then either everyone who tells me I'm overthinking things is right, or MY WHOLE WORLD IS A LIE.

But... but I don't want to follow Jung's personal train of thought via his obtuse writing style until I'm more convinced he had it right, and such an endeavor would be worthy of my focus. Because I heard a rumor he pissed himself up a lot, and I have a really good feeling about that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
So you believe what's-his-name (help me out, @reckful ?) got the "model" stacks right for each type, and every person (or every healthy person) is one of those, and the CF tests are wrong for most people?
Harold Grant was the deep thinker who came up with the famous stack that says INTJs and INTPs have no functions in common and INTJs and ESFPs have the same four functions, and his inspiring model has been carried on by shining lights like Linda Berens, not to mention an army of bamboozled internet forumites.

That stack has no respectable body of supporting evidence behind it, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.

As further explained in this long post, Jung's function stacks for an Ni-dom with a T-aux and a Ti-dom with an N-aux were Ni-Ti-Fe-Se and Ti-Ni-Se-Fe, respectively. And Myers' stacks for those two were Ni-Te-Fe-Se and Ti-Ne-Se-Fe.

The idea that, if Ne (for example) is one of your top four functions, then Si must also be one of your top four functions, because Ne and Si somehow necessarily work together "in tandem" has no real basis in Jung or Myers, not to mention no other respectable reason to subscribe to it.

It's true that Jung and Myers both said that an Ne-dom would have Si as their inferior function. But to both Jung and Myers, your inferior function typically manifested in a problematic way that made it more like the opposite of that same function in the dominant role.

For example, Jung said that, whereas Ne-doms have a knack for sniffing out the latest trends and the ways things could be changed for the better, the inferior Ne of Si-doms tends to exhibit "an amazing flair for all the ambiguous, shadowy, sordid, dangerous possibilities lurking in the background" and has "a dangerous and destructive quality" — with the result that Ne-doms tend to embrace/cause change, while Si-doms tend to fear/resist change.

Similarly, in describing the ways inferior Fi tended to manifest in a Te-dom, Jung described several examples of unethical behavior and commented that "only an inferior feeling function, operating unconsciously and in secret, could seduce otherwise reputable men into such aberrations." He said a Te-dom's inferior feelings tend to have "a sultry and resentful character," and to lead the Te-dom to "make negative assumptions about other people."

Describing Fe-doms, Jung said that their inferior thinking tends to be "infantile, archaic [and] negative," and to take the form of "obsessive ideas which are invariably of a negative and depreciatory character," noting that "women of this type have moments when the most hideous thoughts fasten on the very objects most valued by their feelings."

Myers tended to talk about inferior functions in more dichotomous terms — e.g., with N's tending to view/experience S in negative terms. But the second edition of the MBTI Manual (which she co-authored) noted that the types with either form of N as their inferior function — the "ISJ and ESP types" — are prone to view "possibilities" in overly negative terms, and urged MBTI counselors to help them "develop strategies to counteract the 'black cloud effect.'"

So, unlike internet forumites who've put their faith in bad type sources — did I mention Linda Berens already? — and think that Si-doms and Ne-doms actually have substantial aspects of personality in common onnaccounta they're both "Si-Ne types," Jung and Myers were both inclined to view Si-doms and Ne-doms as pretty much just opposites.

And as far as the auxiliary and tertiary functions go: Again, Myers didn't believe someone's tertiary function was the opposite of their auxiliary (e.g., her INTJ stack was Ni-Te-Fe-Se). Jung thought the auxiliary and tertiary would be opposites in the typical case (e.g., Ti-Ni-Se-Fe), but he also thought that it was typical for the tertiary function (1) to be predominantly unconscious, (2) to be "undifferentiated" and "fused" with the inferior function, and (3) to basically serve as the inferior function's auxiliary. So Jung no more thought that tertiary Si (in the typical case) resembled the positive form of Si in the dominant role — and worked in constructive tandem with an Ne auxiliary function — than he thought an Si inferior worked in constructive tandem with an Ne dominant.

And in any case, setting aside what Jung or Myers thought, the most important thing to realize is that the idea of tandem-based types has no respectable body of empirical support behind it. They've been collecting data and doing studies involving MBTI types for 50 years now, and those data pools consistently show that if whatever's being correlated with your MBTI type is something that's affected by both your S/N and J/P preferences, with the result that the SJs (for example) are at one end of the applicable spectrum, you know where you can reliably expect to find the NPs? That's right! At the opposite end of the spectrum.

If SJs and NPs have substantial aspects of personality in common onnaccounta they're both "Si/Ne types," then there ought to be MBTI data pools where those aspects of personality are the main ones that influence whatever's being correlated with type, with the result that the SJs and NPs are together on one side of the correlational divide and the SPs and NJs (the "Se/Ni types") are on the other side. But alas for Harold Grant and Linda Berens, that pattern somehow never seems to show up.

And reckful is here to tell you that the reason that pattern virtually never shows up is that the idea of "tandem functions," and the corresponding Harold Grant function stack, both lack "validity" — to characterize them in psychometric terms. Or in lay terms: they're both horseshit.
 
1 - 20 of 74 Posts
Top