Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
After much study and review, here is a new theory for your consideration. While you will see similarities to the MBTI, there are very important and distinct differences which provide SO MUCH CLARITY! See the paragraphs below the personality types for a detailed explanation.

Here are the base preferences that can define personality with clarity:

Decision making preference:
Idealistic (acting according to the way things ought to be) vs. Realistic (acting according to way things are now)

Information gathering preference:
Sensing (gathering info from environment) vs. iNternalizing (gathering information internally)

Dominant preference:
Perceiving (Information gathering) vs. Deciding (Decision Making)

Brain Wiring:
Erratic (Multiple Erratic Stimuli) vs. Focused (Singular Focused Attention)

In “function” terms, this simplifies things into two functions: information gathering & decision making. So you can assess yourself in this way: 1. Decide which preference you are in each of those functions. 2. Which one is your dominant function: your decision making one or your information gathering one? 3. Lastly, determine which method your brain processes these functions – erratic (multitasking) or focused (singular attention).

So here is a breakdown of the different possibilities:

Sensory Perceivers: Dominantly Gather Information from Environment
Explorers (Sensory input is the goal, and decisions serve to benefit the ideal senses)
EISp – Erratic Idealistic Sensory-perceiver
FISp – Focused Idealistic Sensory-perceiver
Fixers (Info obtained from senses used in immediate contexts)
ERSp – Erratic Realistic Sensory-perceiver
FRSp – Focused Realistic Sensory-perceiver

Internal Perceivers: Dominantly Gather Information Internally
Architects (Knowledge gained serves to build a possible future world)
EINp – Erratic Idealistic Internal-perceivers
FINp – Focused Idealistic Internal-perceivers
Problem Solvers (Internal logic brings solutions to current problems)
ERNp – Erratic Realistic Internal-perceivers
FRNp – Focused Realistic Internal-perceivers

Realist Deciders: Dominantly Make Decisions based on Current Situational Effectiveness
Administrators (Immediate decision making based on immediate sensory environment)
ESRd – Erratic Sensing Realist-decider
FSRd – Focused Sensing Realist-decider
Leaders (Decisions to produce effective results based on logical formulation)
ENRd – Erratic Internalizing Realist-decider
FNRd – Focused Internalizing Realist-decider

Idealist Deciders: Dominantly Make Decisions based on Values and/or Possibilities
Traditionalists (Decide based on values acquired from Sensory input – past traditions)
ESId – Erratic Sensing Idealist-decider
FSId – Focused Sensing Idealist-decider
Revolutionists (Decide based on possibilities acquired from internalization – what can be)
ENId – Erratic Internalizing Idealist-decider
FNId – Focused Internalizing Idealist-decider



REDEFINING MBTI:
This is a very rough draft so bear with me:
I think the general structure is correct but the definitions are all screwed up.

Thinking should not be an option – we all think logically. Scientifically, our “feelings” are simply thought patterns enforced by emotions. It is terribly confusing and incorrect to separate thinking from feeling. The REAL distinction is whether we are deciding to act and achieve qaccording to idealistic possibilities or according to the way things exist and work currently. BOTH of these deciding functions use logic and emotion simultaneously.

Secondly, extraversion and introversion are a joke. Serious cognitive students know that they don’t mean outgoing vs. quiet (although they can manifest as such in certain personalities). Largely these are defined as external and internal as relating to functions. However, I contend that these definitions are even worse. It is ESPECIALLY trashy how most people attempt to define each function according to these poor distinguishers. External and internal is a poor copy of the true preference of sensing vs. intuition. And thus the waters get terribly muddied. The BETTER distinction is the preference between Quickly Shifting Stimuli vs. Deep Focused Attention. I understand that most include this definition in E vs. I understanding, but they take it way too far beyond this.

Judging vs. Perceiving is accurate only when determining which is the dominant preference of the person: information gathering or decision Making. However, Myers can’t even get this right! All IxxJ’s have a Perceiving function as their dominant and all IxxP’s have a judging function as their dominant. No wonder so many people are confused at the results of their personalities after taking a Myers test or trying to apply the functions. Honestly, it’s like reading a horoscope – OF COURSE some things are going to apply to you.

Finally, sensing and intuition are the correct distinctions of the information gathering function. This gives us the distinction between gathering info from the environment vs. gathering info internally. The problem of the current definitons is that they overlap SO MANY of the other functions. Sensing becomes acting on the here and now and Intuition becomes learning to “trust your hunches”. As if sensing and intuition were judging functions. Of course, Myers additionally screws it up the moment the functions are then further defined by internal and external. Due to the confusion, I have renamed them Sensing and iNternalizing.

One problem with many current personality paradigms is they apply values and people interaction to personality traits in incorrect ways. Values and people interaction vastly define who you are and CANNOT be applied to personality profiles. These elements should be able to coincide with every personality type without conflict. Largely because our values and people focus change in our environments as well as when we grow and develop – while our personality preferences don’t change as quickly.

Love to hear your thoughts!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,255 Posts
Hmm... interesting...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Very very rough attempt, I'm sorry to say, although I agree with some of your sentiments here and there. This stuff is infinitely more basic than MBTI makes it out to be (MBTI way over-complicates this stuff by appealing to vague, archetypal stereotypes, rather than really delving deep into what this stuff is fundamentally getting at). Thinking is thinking, essentially - technical consideration for interpretation - conceptualization in order to make sense of anything by measuring consistency in terms of how facts relate to each other (Te, since facts are externally stated and derived), or by measuring consistency in terms of how definitions relate to each other (Ti, since definitions are internally derived and subject to internal revision) - both judge in a logical fashion, but the T functions aren't logic in and of themselves - the T type sort of creates their own means of logic (Ti) or adapts any variety of existing means of logic (Te) to handle their thinking. Feeling is the most misunderstood form of cognitive functioning on the internet without a doubt. Feeling is not at all thinking, unlike what you said. (it is not emotion at all, although it is equipped to rationalize emotions and anything non-technical and non-conceptual and sort of rides on emotions in order to do its job to an extent, but it controls emotions - emotions don't rule over it in the dominant/auxiliary forms - if so, the person would be a hot mess - tert and inferior F types tend to have more trouble evaluating their emotions and values, because their feeling functions aren't advanced enough to have an intricate way of sorting through emotions in order to reason - hence, especially the inferior F types, tend to view feelings as irrational or unreasonable) - feeling, in short, is evaluation (e.g. good/bad, ugly/pretty, perfect/imperfect, etc.). It can be very advanced and great at reasoning with the grey and ambiguous (e.g. philosophy) - since it is more rational in the higher F types, there is the potential that it might be mistaken for T by people who aren't very well-versed in cognitive functions, although it is very different from the T functions, in that it views things in shades of value and obviously has a very personal nature to it (T is very detached and black and white) - contrary to popular misattributions of logic to the T functions, the F functions use a logic of their own as well, either on variously adapted external standards of evaluation (Fe) or one's own standards of evaluation (Fi). The logic in both the T and F functions just means that the reason behind both can be followed by others, essentially (hence they are both RATIONAL functions). Every single type uses the T and F functions and are capable of using them well - I would argue that tertiary T types (IXFJs and EXFPs) and tertiary F types (IXTJs and EXTPs) largely don't have many issues with their T and F functions, although they downplay them relative to their aux. functions for sure and tend to be very independent with them, which is a topic for another day. The inferior T and F types are the ones who can certainly use those functions, but have a rigid all-or-nothing command of them and can be shaky in these areas for sure. The inferior F types can come across as people who don't ally themselves with values and speak their minds a ton (F types might find this grating, inappropriate, and offensive at times and mistake them for being uncaring people, which may or may not be true - not that they couldn't think this about aux. T types either) when you're not getting their rigid F side out of them, while inferior T types can look like they're lacking independent thoughts on...a lot and T types might view them as being "too nice," lacking self-esteem in their intelligence, superficial with their feelings (since T types of all stripes have a more raw feeling side that they'd rather not get so comfortable with often) or not get why the dom F types put so much special particular emphasis on certain points where the reasoning behind them isn't clear and view this as mindless emotionalism, when in fact, it might just be the inferior F type (and tert. F types to a lesser extent) having a ton of trouble evaluating where the "value" in what the F type is emphasizing, is - the dominant T types, with rough and shoddy evaluation abilities, might often be seen as the people who demand an explanation for everything out of people in ways that show that they tend to underestimate the intelligence and independent thinking of others, when in fact, there are many times and places where they are expected to evaluate for themselves in place of wasting everyones time and potentially embarrassing and hurting others' feelings defining everything that others might just not give two craps about. This is a topic for another day also. The S and N functions are the empirical over hunches and dealing with what isn't obvious enough to human existence, respectively. I have no clue what internalization has anything to do with the N functions - internalization can relate to probably any function at times - for instance, Fi types are rather notorious for internalizing their feelings, etc.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
I really think that before defining anything you have to determine whether yours is a behavioral approach like Myers or Kiersey or a psychological approach like Jung, Freud, etc. Because I think right now the two are sort of getting intertwined.

The problem is that, to my knowledge (and I could be wrong), while Jung says that the rational functions (judging) will promote decision making, this doesn't always lead to a specific action, which I think is where Myers goes wrong with J/P. Simply being an introverted feeling type, for example doesn't mean that your actions will always be P-like, if you will (and we certainly can't make that a psychological imperative that would be highly overgeneralizing). Extraverted Thinking may appeal to some external concept like "the rule of law," or "efficiency," but again we can't know that Te-type will actually act upon this because of Te (a great number of Te-types are lazy bums or homeless not running Fortune 500 companies, yet their dominant preference is still Extraverted Thinking).

So while I think you're definitely on the right track, we need to establish what the end goal is because your types come off as basically a hybrid of Kiersey temperament roles and MBTI, which is basically already what Linda Berens has done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
Actually, this isn't half bad. I think people would be much likely to type themselves correctly with a system like this. Instead of "I am smart so I must be an intuitive" or "I am rational so I must be a thinker."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Thing is, I've found Jung to have really increased my appreciation for Ti's focus on definitions, interestingly enough, because as I'm coming to see, this stuff is largely in the realm of Ti (as well as Ni in a different kind of way - in general, it engages all of the introverted functions more than, well, much of anything I can think of out there, since it's defining them as more than the mere coincidences of existence that they are largely made out to be in our heavily extraverted society), in that, paying attention to how Jung defined everything is critical to truly understanding what MBTI and all that preceded Jung's work, is getting at. Unfortunately, the OP's theory happens to downgrade intuition to one of those "mere coincidences of existence," interestingly enough (Jung makes it clear that there's a ton more to intuition than what it's popularly viewed as as "enigmatic, coincidental hunches" - in actuality, this is just the societal attempt to sort of pretend it doesn't exist as an advanced form of interpretation, among other things). Truth be told, the OP is dead wrong about introversion and extraversion being a "joke" (quite the contrary - in fact, introversion and extraversion are largely the most important and even worthy of practical consideration IRL of any of the concepts in every Jung/MBTI/and even non-MBTI personality theory in existence (I/E is fundamentally the same everywhere conceptually, btw, but Jung takes it a step further and defines the functions via these) - the theory of personality types would be NOTHINGNESS without these concepts - this concept is probably the main one that most people IRL had any awareness of before getting into this stuff, largely because it's just that important and noticeable about people. What's most important about I/E of all in MBTI and Jung is that every extravert has an inner introvert and every introvert has an inner extravert - in short, there's always more to a person than what meets the eye - no one way of thinking/feeling/intuiting/sensing is the "right way" by default - the ego tricks you into thinking this though, since the ego is the cheerleader for the dominant function - the inferior function is the gateway out of this to an extent though to help you appreciate the differences in others and such (although it can only work to the extent that the dominant preference is still largely in tact, so it's obviously going to be largely repressed and a source of issues in people) - basically, this would make sense in that it should be helpful in allowing a person to comfortably make sense of or appreciate what they don't feel is "them" and is instead "other," although this would largely depend on the individual's relationship so-to-speak with their inferior function for whatever the reason - there's more to this than this, but that's all I can think of right now.

Also, I think @LiquidLight is dead right with this:

I really think that before defining anything you have to determine whether yours is a behavioral approach like Myers or Kiersey or a psychological approach like Jung, Freud, etc. Because I think right now the two are sort of getting intertwined.
 

·
Ace of Spades
7w6 4w3 1w9 sp/so; Ni/Ne/Te-dom
Joined
·
3,254 Posts
I like it better than MBTI already ;)

I don't personally have any suggestions, except that it would be really useful if you gave precise definitions of the 8 "functions" you are using.

I tried to type myself based off the system, and didn't have a clear enough understanding of the definitions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Another source of my beef with the OP's definitions is how much of this seems to be built on thinking, where the OP is clearly downplaying the reality of functions like feeling and sensing, as if they are invalid unless they can be explained "scientifically," whatever that actually means (this neglects the psychological nature of them, anyhow). Maybe it's the Ni in me - I dunno, but the limited perspective of the OP's theory is driving me batty. I find it more confusing than even MBTI, frankly, especially the insanely long names and arbitrary scattering of concepts, like the Si dominants becoming idealists in this system - wha??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Thanks! Concerning Jung vs. Myers, here is my take with limited knowledge: I really appreciate somewhat Jung's functions and the insight they give. Myers was right in the attempt to try to classify them into types for clarity's sake, I just think she did it sloppy and wrong. And to be honest, some of Jung's functions overlap...can't we just admit this? Jung was dealing with cognitive functions according to the science he had available. We have infinitely more science now which sheds light to how our brain works and which places Jung's functions a bit out of date. So I agree with you when you say I am getting the two approaches intertwined. I don't think we can really separate them. Our behaviors are going to be natural byproducts of our thoughts...after all, its simply signals our brain is sending to the rest of our bodies. So the observation of behavior is simply an extension of cognitive realities. I understand they have been different forms of research, but as science increases I believe we will see them merge. See my reply to Jungyes's post for more on this. Thanks again and keep the feedback coming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
feeling, in short, is evaluation (e.g. good/bad, ugly/pretty, perfect/imperfect, etc.).
JungyesMBTIno, you have a great understanding of the definitions of Jung's functions, and I appreciate your comparisons to my theory. Part of the reason I called this a redefining is precisely because of your definition above. Most people cannot correctly understand the word "feeling", no matter how well you try to define it. On the one hand, I have placed this function in equivalence with my "Idealist" function. Namely, making decisions based on values, or how things ought to be. But on the other hand, many definitions of the "feeling" function have as much to do with perception as they do judging.

Here is my response to your defense of Jung's functions. They shed a lot of clarity on our brain's processes that we need. The problem is they overlap quite a bit. And once MBTI gets a hold of them and tries to pidgeonhole them, it gets even worse - its like using an alphabet where many letters have the same sounds and trying to create a language...many words are going to make sense, while people will still be confused at when you try to clarify the distinctions between things.

What I have done is attempt to find the clearest distinctions in human thought process based on Jung's studies. So I based the functions on his concept of information gathering functions vs. decision making functions. All of our processes follow this pattern: we receive information, then we act accordingly. Next, I divided those functions in the clearest way possible: sensory vs. internal data gathering; and value based vs. production based decision making. Finally I added a specific method by which those functions operate: deep focused concentration (laser ray) vs. erratic multitasking thinking (shotgun). It's not so much a tossing away of Jung's functions as it is a reorganizing and redefining them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I like it better than MBTI already ;)

I don't personally have any suggestions, except that it would be really useful if you gave precise definitions of the 8 "functions" you are using.
What do you mean you don't have any suggestions....that is a great suggestion! I realize I didn't give very thorough explanations so here we go:

Information gathering preference (INPUT): Sensing vs. iNternalizing
Sensing: This is one who prefers to gather info from environment, from the five senses dominantly as well as from the past recollection of these senses. Usually these people are very aware and observant of their physical environment and surroundings.

iNternalizing: (this is probably a poor word for this function, I apologize) This is one who prefers to gather information internally. Often this preference causes people to be physically unobservant. Their input comes dominantly from within - from their own logic or from unconscious connections of thought (known to some as intuition).


Decision making preference (OUTPUT):Idealistic vs. Realistic
Idealistic - you make decisions primarily based on your ideals, or how you believe things should be. You act according to the way things ought to be more than according to the way things are right now. You are often willing to sacrifice immediate results if it will serve your values and produce future results or different results. At times will desire to change "the system" from the outside.

Realistic - you prefer to act according to way things are currently in order to see results. You prefer to consider current realities and make your decisions accordingly. Your viewpoint is often that current actions working within "the system" will produce better results than trying to act outside of it.


Dominant preference: Perceiving (INPUT) vs. Deciding (OUTPUT)
Perceiving: You prefer to spend more of you time gathering information than in making decisions. For you, it is more engaging to learn, observe or experience than to decide, act, or initiate. The process or journey is as beneficial as the destination.

Deciding: You would rather make decisions and get things done than spending too much time deliberating about them. You are driven to action and want to see accomplishment. You enjoy the fulfillment of closure and completion.


Brain Wiring: Erratic vs. Focused
Erratic - Your thought processes are often scattered and random. You will often do well at multitasking and prefer being in environment where you can move from one thing to the next quickly. Your brain is setup with many neuron connections and your thought processes usually happen in rapid fashion. You will typically enjoy conversations that don't linger on one topic for long.

Focused - Your thought processes are singular and focused. You enjoy tunneling into one object or thought or subject and thoroughly examining it. Your brain is wired with less, but stronger connections, so you are frequently driven to figure out or experience one thing at a time.

Hope this helps!
I have intentionally left out people interaction in these functions because people interaction is a matter of life experience, development, and maturity more than of your brains capabilities. For example, an extrovert, or even extroverted functions, are often defined as interacting with people, or enjoying people - this mixes the brain's makeup with actually development processes. I redefine this area as Erratic Processing - someone may have an erratic processing mind but may not enjoy peoples company (introvert or extrovert? who can tell?!). Another person may have a focused processing brain but gains much energy and fulfillment being around people - he simply doesn't like small talk and loves talking with people about singular subjects of interest for longer periods of time.

Whatever your preferences in my types, it doesn't affect your values or your people development so it shouldn't shift and change as often as Jung or even MBTI will.

Tell me what you think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Another source of my beef with the OP's definitions is how much of this seems to be built on thinking, where the OP is clearly downplaying the reality of functions like feeling and sensing, as if they are invalid unless they can be explained "scientifically," whatever that actually means ...... I find it more confusing than even MBTI, frankly
Firstly, you sound like you know Jung and MBTI backward and forward (congrats) so of COURSE you will find something new MORE confusing than MBTI at first glance. (Remember, INTJ, to fully allow new data into your processing system before making a judgment on it and tossing it out!)

Second, and more importantly: I am not at ALL downplaying emotions and feeling. In fact, I believe I am aiding their use. Emotions are crucial and can be used in any of the functions at varying levels. I have intentional avoided use of language that includes emotion because emotions are not subject to brain preferences but come in tandem with brain preferences. For example, someone may who internally takes in data and makes decisions based on reality (similar to an NT) - this person may be very emotionally developed as thus excluded from a clear NT definiton. Or there may be a sensing idealist (info from environment and makes decisions based on values - similar to SF) but who is not a "feeler" or who's emotions aren't developed. Emotions and feelings are a completely DIFFERENT VARIABLE which colors each type in a different way. To INCLUDE emotion as a part of a cognitive process system is to confuse the whole thing - ergo the MBTI mis-classifies thousands of people. This is also why with this system, a male and female "internalizing realist" may look different based on their emotional difference, but their thought processes will be the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
680 Posts
pretty good! its nice to finally clear the T/F and N/S stereotypes. thanks for spending time on an alternative theory, it's greatly appreciated.

FINp – Focused Idealistic Internal-perceivers (still technically an infp if i rearrange the letters lol)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
Actually, this isn't half bad. I think people would be much likely to type themselves correctly with a system like this. Instead of "I am smart so I must be an intuitive" or "I am rational so I must be a thinker."
This isnt really a problem with the system thou, its the people using the system. Who said intelligence is dependant on N or S? other people who have no experience of knowledge of the actual system.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
I'm not entirely convinced Jung's functions overlap in the way you suggest. I think for starters, if you haven't you have to read the entirety of Psychological Types, not just chapter 10, because that's usually the first place people get mixed up. Because he goes into a rather extensive treatise (9 chapters worth) before getting to the description of the types. To understand Jung's concept of the psyche, which was built around already existing ideas from Freud, Adler and others, you realize that the reason his function descriptions are the way they are is that 1) he was really working with people who had severe mental pathologies like schizophrenia and trying to figure out if there were any patterns to these problems, not trying to develop a system of typology (which even in its day was exceptionally controversial) and 2) he carefully avoids intertwining behavior and his function descriptions because his concept of the psyche was much broader. To Jung behavior could be much better explained by the influence of the complexes over the functions, which is what Myers tries to do.

For example, people often make the mistake of believing that Extraverted Feeling will adopt whatever external values you are exposed to, but this isn't the case. Extraverted Feeling (or Thinking) is simply the Ego's preferred method for value judgments. Extraverted Feeling accomplishes the ego's goals, not the other way around as is commonly considered. The functions serve the ego. So whatever the ego says, the two most dominant functions happily oblige. This is profoundly different from the MBTI construct which attempts to amalgamate everything down to the functions (and really not even the functions but rather judging/perceiving). We've all learned from MBTI that, for instance, if you are closure-seeking you must have a strong preference for Extraverted Judgment (Thinking or Feeling). But in reality it is not Te that makes you organized, it is your complexes. The persona, the ego, the anima/animus, etc. Te is just the ego's preferred method of accomplishing this, but simply being a Te-type does not mean you will always be efficient or organized, quite the contrary. And so I think there is often a lot of unwrapping to do with MBTI because there are certain assumptions tied to the functions that Jung does not make.

In Jungian terms if someone was a J (closure-seeking) or P (non-closure-seeking) this would almost certainly be related to the content of a person's complexes, most likely the persona. Nothing here to do with Extraverted Feeling or Thinking, but rather, largely who you attempt to be (or not to be) in the outer world, which is a product of the persona complex and the anima/animus complex.

This is why we don't get to the description of the types until Chapter 10, which really indicates the degree to which Jung did not think the types were all that important but were rather anecdotal metrics of a person's ego complex. A heuristical model of looking at the ego complex in a simplistic way. What Psychological Types turned into, is really a product of the Extraverted Thinking-centric world that is always trying to categorize, stereotype, put people in boxes, etc., which is precisely what Jung knew would happen and warned against in Psychological Types, and is precisely what Myers (an Inferior Te-type herself) did. Rather than an adjectival breakdown of the functioning of a person's ego, the typology became hard and rigid metrics that sought to stereotype and explain behavior (which is ridiculous) in simplistic terms like judging or perceiving (ignoring the fact that a person might act a certain way for a multitude of reasons other than innate psychological disposition). And then the temperament theorists like Kiersey got invovled and it really went all downhill from there (Myers original theory is much closer to Analytical Psychology than it is now conceptualized).

Information gathering preference (INPUT): Sensing vs. iNternalizing
Sensing: This is one who prefers to gather info from environment, from the five senses dominantly as well as from the past recollection of these senses. Usually these people are very aware and observant of their physical environment and surroundings.

iNternalizing: (this is probably a poor word for this function, I apologize) This is one who prefers to gather information internally. Often this preference causes people to be physically unobservant. Their input comes dominantly from within - from their own logic or from unconscious connections of thought (known to some as intuition).


Decision making preference (OUTPUT):Idealistic vs. Realistic
Idealistic - you make decisions primarily based on your ideals, or how you believe things should be. You act according to the way things ought to be more than according to the way things are right now. You are often willing to sacrifice immediate results if it will serve your values and produce future results or different results. At times will desire to change "the system" from the outside.

Realistic - you prefer to act according to way things are currently in order to see results. You prefer to consider current realities and make your decisions accordingly. Your viewpoint is often that current actions working within "the system" will produce better results than trying to act outside of it.


Dominant preference: Perceiving (INPUT) vs. Deciding (OUTPUT)
Perceiving: You prefer to spend more of you time gathering information than in making decisions. For you, it is more engaging to learn, observe or experience than to decide, act, or initiate. The process or journey is as beneficial as the destination.

Deciding: You would rather make decisions and get things done than spending too much time deliberating about them. You are driven to action and want to see accomplishment. You enjoy the fulfillment of closure and completion.
in Analytical Psychology (and really a good chunk of modern clinical psychology) most of these things would be products of the complexes not the functions. If you want to get things done and not deliberate that is probably your Ego or Persona at work (maybe the anima). The functions are just the mechanisms for processing. Like cogs in a wheel. Again it is Myers who turned the functions in the centerpiece of the psyche not Jung, and that's why when people run off and read PT without understanding the bigger picture they often reach erroneous conclusions about Jung's intents (most people don't even realize that the description of the types near the end of the book after he's laid the foundation).

Brain Wiring: Erratic vs. Focused
Erratic - Your thought processes are often scattered and random. You will often do well at multitasking and prefer being in environment where you can move from one thing to the next quickly. Your brain is setup with many neuron connections and your thought processes usually happen in rapid fashion. You will typically enjoy conversations that don't linger on one topic for long.

Focused - Your thought processes are singular and focused. You enjoy tunneling into one object or thought or subject and thoroughly examining it. Your brain is wired with less, but stronger connections, so you are frequently driven to figure out or experience one thing at a time.
Here, even I think someone like Nardi would be careful not to make these kinds of assumptions. For example he notices the Christmas-Tree neurological pattern in the EEG scans of Ne-doms, but is not going to go as far as to say You will typically enjoy conversations that don't linger on one topic for long. To me this is where it crosses over into Kiersey/astrology/fortune-cookie land, because again we are attempting to tie something that could be, in truth be linked to anything (maybe the people the person is around are just uninteresting or have little to say) to a neurological disposition and then we get into the grey area of trying to figure out who would belong to the erratic type and under what circumstance and who decides. In PT, Jung makes the argument that the reason he calls the Thinking/Feeling types rational is because of his own preference toward Thinking, but he makes the point that if he was a perception type he might just as well have written it from the opposite perspective calling the Sensation/Intuitives the rationals. That what makes a judgment type judgmental is really in the eye of the beholder, so when Myers creates these dichotomies, there are a lot of cultural, stereotypical, normative, behavioral assumptions that get thrown into the mix rather than just Jung's simple explanation of "Extraverted Intuitive" which is purposely vague so that it stands apart from any preconceived notion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,928 Posts
You are on the right track, that is, trying to fill in holes, but you're just spreading the the same amount of jelly around more evenly... Get a new piece of bread, and put some peanut butter on it.

What I mean to say is that if you are concerned that MBTI is flawed, it is flawed because of its simplicity. Human nature is not simple, and therefore you should aim for the max amount of information and understanding you can get before you try piecing it together and rearranging into categories.

So, yeah, its a rough draft. Too rough for the public. Get back to researching, this has promise!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
210 Posts
After much study and review, here is a new theory for your consideration. While you will see similarities to the MBTI, there are very important and distinct differences which provide SO MUCH CLARITY! See the paragraphs below the personality types for a detailed explanation.
Bullshit theory.

All of the definitions of functions you made were based on a purely Ne (or Se) + Ti perspective. The one about sensory and internal data processing, which is actually a demonstration of the working combination of Ne/Se and Ti, cries out of an academic award of stupidity. If nothing else, using this definition about data processing no one would be able to tell the differences between sensing type who only processes data specific only to one context, and intuitive type who discovers patterns to use in multiple contexts.

The one about brain wiring is also stupid, albeit a little amusing, since erratic and focus functioning is a classic trait of ENTP and INTP (not sure if it's also true for E/ISTP). Reading this anyone who has some knowledge of psychology would know how strong of an influence your own projection has onto your so called "more advanced" brain functioning theory.

The fact Jung's definitions of functioning seem to overlap largely has to do with the fact human's brains are complex, and thus any fine, subtle differences between type functions can look to disappear when certain types are called upon by situations to focus on their alien functions to be used in combination with their familiar ones. If human brains and their functioning are simple and easy to differentiate, the secrets about brain types would have been discovered thousands of years ago by ancients living in primitive tribes.

Before deciding to act as a culture hero attempting to dethrone a famous, well tested theory and replace it with your own one, perhaps it'll help to first do some more research to make sure your theory can be in-depth enough and with enough empirical data to back up the things you put forward. Jung did many decades of difficult field researches before he finally formulated a theory from the hard data he collected. The impression I got from your post was you had only read a few pages from some of your college textbooks.

I really appreciate your courage in innovating and correcting existing theory. But with such limited knowledge of psychology and brain functioning in demonstration, you only succeeded in making a fool out of yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,730 Posts
Socionics is bullshit. It doesn't correspond to MBTI; the conversions don't work. AN there are numerous other complaints I have with it, but the theory is fundamentally unsound.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
if ... MBTI is flawed, it is flawed because of its simplicity. Human nature is not simple, and therefore you should aim for the max amount of information and understanding you can get before you try piecing it together and rearranging into categories...this has promise!
Thanks to all of you! Very helpful, albeit sometimes a bit bitter from some of you. Many of you are busy contrasting my system to Jung and Myers and how warped it looks in contrast. It should. My entire contention is that the Jung's functions are too complex and messy and Myers categorizes the mess. So I am not perfecting Jung but rather attempting to isolate MORE CLEAR functions which people can associate their thinking processes with.

Tango, thank you. Great insight. Let me make you aware of some of the base reasoning behind the theory. I agree with you completely that human nature (and cognitive processes) are not simple. The mind is an ocean of complexity and overlap. My attempt is to try and find cognitive patterns that are the MOST OPPOSITE and DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER with the majority of the population. Only in this way can we find the clearest path to cognitive distinction. For example, I am testing the theory that Idealism vs Realism is the MOST OPPOSITE VARIABLE within human decision-making processes. Many people making decisions based on utility and results (realism), while others base decisions on values and ideals (idealism).

One could contend that this was Jung's definitions of thinking vs feeling but it got muddled by others along the way. I think once one places a label of "introverted feeling (value basis)" vs. "extroverted feeling (value basis)" is where we go wrong. It is ALL introverted while we are thinking about it, and it becomes extroverted based on our life experiences, development, upbringing and way too many other factors to be able to classify within "personality types".

I am trying to avoid outside factors that will too much complicate things. Fe has so much to do with acting according to how other people respond. This is a VALUE that has to do with one's worldview and so it complicates clear cognitive processes. What are we to do with religious NTs and STs and other non "feeling" types who have been raised by their parents to treat others well and who deeply value being considerate to others? These people are lost into a mess of miscategorization and misunderstanding of who they are and how they think. This is just one example of many.

As good scientists, the best way to test a theory isn't to merely compare it to other theories, but to put it into practice and see if the results are noteworthy. I would love if you would attempt to classify yourself according to this system and see if if helps clarify and distinguish some of your cognitive processes. Thanks again.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top