Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
With the cognitive functions approach, we have well-discussed contrasts in the form of function axes: in INTP, Ti/Fe and Ne/Si. A lot has been said about how Ti types relate to Fe, how Se types relate to Ni, etc.

[Like how Ne seeks adventure in novel and fantastical ideas, and Si seeks a solid, secure foothold in the real world.
But how an Ne generates fixed habits, specifically to free up mental room for his fantasy escapades, and how an Si needs Ne's "conceptual branching" to further its optimization process.] (There are better explanations out there of Ne/Si and Si/Ne.)

If these questions can be reformulated as, e.g. "How does preferred NP relate to non-preferred SJ?", they can be extended to similar questions for the rest of the preference pairs, e.g.

IN v. ES
NF v. ST
EJ v. IP
IF v. ET

Has anyone reached any insights into...
...what characterises these groups?
...what contrasts them from their opposites?
...how a person of one group is supported by traits from their opposite group (Ne/Si axis style)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
N similarity is supposed to be very important. If this letter is opposed it can create communication problems.
NTPs are good with NFJs and so on...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,016 Posts
N similarity is supposed to be very important. If this letter is opposed it can create communication problems.
NTPs are good with NFJs and so on...
I disagree and think this is more so just a bias that typology communities have created.

An Ne dom & an Ni dom are still extremely different, even if they both have intuition.

In my opinion IRL I think it just hit or miss on all ends and depends on various individuals
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
I disagree and think this is more so just a bias that typology communities have created.

An Ne dom & an Ni dom are still extremely different, even if they both have intuition.

In my opinion IRL I think it just hit or miss on all ends and depends on various individuals
Yeah, it's theory, it can differs, but usually SJs are matched with SPs and NTs and NFs. But you can definitely find an ISFP with an ENTP probably somewhere
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Just read Socionic's Intertype Relationships:
Intertype Relationships
If you're unsure on what each type's intertype relationship is then look at this diagram:
Intertype Relationships diagram
I'm afraid this doesn't do much towards answering the question. I'm asking about generalising the "tandem/axis" idea to other preference pairs (e.g. IF/ET, ES/IN, ...) which necessarily goes outside of functions territory, and thus out of the territory of socionics. Also tandems are things that are allegedly at play on an intratype basis, not intertype.

The question: If we can claim that NP/SJ forms an axis or a tandem and NJ/SP forms a counteraxis to NP/SJ, is there a general psychological reason for this that allows us to do the same with other pairs such as NT/SF and NF/ST?



My guess is that as an INTP, my view of each of these factors becomes conflated with the others: when I think of T I think in terms of norm-breaking (TP) and abstract systems (NT) and when I think of N I think of associative searching (NP) and detailed schemas (IN). So that when I think of F I think of political correctness (FJ) and when I think of S I think of SJ's close-mindedness, when I think of E I think of EF people-people and ES "jocks".

I suspect that contrast is part of why when I "F" to console people, I bring people cookies and hot water bottles (SF) instead of emotional advice (NF).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
The tandem/axis notion is 100% bogus with respect to every preference pair, so there's no sense in trying to extend its reach from the supposed function-related pairs to any of the other pairs.

The notion that if you're an "Fi type," you're also a "Te type" — and ditto for the Fe/Ti, Ni/Se and Ne/Si pairs (the so-called "function axes," or "tandems") — is a by-product of the Harold Grant function stack, which is the forum-famous model that says that INFPs are Fi-Ne-Si-Te, and INFJs are Ni-Fe-Ti-Se, and ZOMG, INFPs and INFJs have no functions in common!

And just so you know, that model is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. More importantly, and unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, the Grant function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and should probably be considered all but disproven at this point.

Here on Planet Reality, the fact is that the four dichotomies, not the functions, are the real, underlying (and substantially genetic) components of your MBTI type — and despite some Jungian lip service, Myers understood that, based on her years of data-gathering and psychometric analysis. And she also understood that dichotomy combinations were associated with many noteworthy aspects of personality, but that there was nothing particularly special about the combinations that are purportedly associated with the "cognitive functions." In fact, Myers thought of NF/NT/SF/ST as the most significant dichotomy combinations — and it's worth noting that that's a carve-up of the types where each group is a type foursome with (assuming you believe in the functions at all) four different dominant functions.

And you will search in vain for any passage in Myers where she says that, if you start with a type foursome that shares two preferences (e.g., the SJs), and you flip both preferences, you'll end up with a foursome (in this example, the NPs) that has more in common with the original group — when it comes to some or all of the stuff affected by those preferences — than if you'd only flipped one preference. And the reason you won't find any such passage is that Myers didn't subscribe to that notion at all. Myers understood that if there's an aspect of personality where the SJs are the types with the most of it, you should expect the NPs to be the types with the least of it.

And Myers was right. The HaroldGrantian double-flip — the goofball geometry underlying the so-called "function axes" — has no basis in reality, and that's why it's found no respectable validation in over 50 years of MBTI data pools, correlating the types with everything under the sun. The notion that an INFP has "tertiary Si," and will therefore tend (probabilistically speaking) to have "Si" aspects of personality in common with a typical ISTJ that ISTPs tend not to exhibit, is a typological assertion that — like all assertions that crosscut the dichotomies in that counterintuitive way — has no more validity than the notion that two people born at around the same time will tend to have aspects of personality in common because they're both Capricorns.

So I'd respectfully suggest that it would be a total waste of your time to try to discover what things "NT/SF types" (for example) have in common (and that distinguish them from "NF/ST types"), and that more than enough time has already been wasted — thanks to the likes of Linda Berens, Dario Nardi and Michael Pierce — on ludicrous type analysis based on non-existent double flip effects.

In case you're in the mood for a hefty helping of input on the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability — not to mention the unbearable bogosity of the Grant function stack — you can find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,070 Posts
As someone new to MBTI, I wonder why is everyone using Grant stack if there is no scientific backing on it. I do not discredit it (yet), and I accept it as it is commonly accepted knowledge. I try to understand this system through those functions, but its hard to understand anything since everyone has its own definitions of those functions.
I can see merit in them, as they try to explain human behavior, but without universal clearcut definitions they bring hell a lot of a confusion.
@reckful can you link me source where i could read how to "decipher" MBTI letters and their combinations?
In a sense if: ISFJ = I + S + F + J + IS + IF + IJ + SF + SJ + FJ + ISF + ISJ + IFJ + SFJ + ISFJ. What all those letter combinations mean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PiT

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
The tandem/axis notion is 100% bogus with respect to every preference pair, so there's no sense in trying to extend its reach from the supposed function-related pairs to any of the other pairs.

The notion that if you're an "Fi type," you're also a "Te type" — and ditto for the Fe/Ti, Ni/Se and Ne/Si pairs (the so-called "function axes," or "tandems") — is a by-product of the Harold Grant function stack, which is the forum-famous model that says that INFPs are Fi-Ne-Si-Te, and INFJs are Ni-Fe-Ti-Se, and ZOMG, INFPs and INFJs have no functions in common!

[...]

The HaroldGrantian double-flip — the goofball geometry underlying the so-called "function axes" — has no basis in reality, and that's why it's found no respectable validation in over 50 years of MBTI data pools, correlating the types with everything under the sun.

[...]

So I'd respectfully suggest that it would be a total waste of your time to try to discover what things "NT/SF types" (for example) have in common (and that distinguish them from "NF/ST types"), and that more than enough time has already been wasted — thanks to the likes of Linda Berens, Dario Nardi and Michael Pierce — on ludicrous type analysis based on non-existent double flip effects.
This is what I've suspected – especially after having a look at what I could glean from the surveys on 16personalities.com and finding no double-flips to be significant groupings on any of the survey items, not even the almost canonical "Judging-dom vs Perceiving-dom" split separating EJ/IP from EP/IJ.

Also there's the objection "why stop there?" that asks why we haven't explored, for example, Socionics' four quadra as contrasting tandem groups.

The other thing I've noticed is that 8-function models seem to be approaching the dichotomy model anyway with, for example, Leon Tsao's rendition of Beebe/Socionics, describing INTP and INTJ as both having "strong" Ni (INJ) and Ti (ITP), with INTJ discarding Ne (ENP) as pointless and distracting where INTP discards Te (ETJ) as lacking in patience and rigor. All this says is that INTP and INTJ are both INT types, but the INTJ is more J and the INTP is more P. (This talk opens up ways of talking about functions that makes the type landscape much more symmetric, by giving meaning to terms like INP.)

Also, on the dichotomy side of things, I find next to nothing about preference multidimensionality that I don't go evaluating myself. Are people not interested in studying it? Or are forums not interested in hearing it?

Forums are largely functions-based, and I wonder if it isn't worthwhile to stop and take what makes sense from Beebe and Socionics (shadow functions talk), integrate it into the "real MBTI model", before weaning ourselves off the functions entirely.

The last thing that I'd want to explore about tandems is this:
The only thing that opposites have in common with each other is the fact that they're opposites of each other – illustrated: for any direction x, -x is the exact opposite direction, but both x and -x define the same line. My attempts to rationalise tandems as something "meta" have been based on that idea. Is there nothing to be had of a "projective" view of the personality space?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,739 Posts
I disagree and think this is more so just a bias that typology communities have created.

An Ne dom & an Ni dom are still extremely different, even if they both have intuition.

In my opinion IRL I think it just hit or miss on all ends and depends on various individuals
I think it really depends on dichotomy strength more than anything. My weakest dichotomy is S/N, and I have found that I tend to develop friendships more easily with STs than I do with NFs. With that said, it is still the case that I am more likely to find myself romantically involved with NF-types than any other combination of those middle letters.

As someone new to MBTI, I wonder why is everyone using Grant stack if there is no scientific backing on it. I do not discredit it (yet), and I accept it as it is commonly accepted knowledge. I try to understand this system through those functions, but its hard to understand anything since everyone has its own definitions of those functions.
I can see merit in them, as they try to explain human behavior, but without universal clearcut definitions they bring hell a lot of a confusion.
Not only is the Grant stack commonly accepted, but it is common in the community to outright repudiate the dichotomy-based understanding of MBTI, even though that is the interpretation of the theory that is actually empirically backed. I have seen people describe cognitive functions (including the Grant stack) as the real science behind MBTI or as a complete description of MBTI, which is such an absurd concept that I don't know how anyone says it with a straight face.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Not only is the Grant stack commonly accepted, but it is common in the community to outright repudiate the dichotomy-based understanding of MBTI, even though that is the interpretation of the theory that is actually empirically backed. I have seen people describe cognitive functions (including the Grant stack) as the real science behind MBTI or as a complete description of MBTI, which is such an absurd concept that I don't know how anyone says it with a straight face.
This, for sure.

The main benefit I have from the function descriptions (leaving out the stacks) is that they give ways of understanding preference combinations like IJ, TJ, INJ and NTJ – something I see too rarely from the dichotomy side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
I identify with the IP preference pairing the most.

IP = Open to small changes, organised internally, disorganised externally, prone to starting projects but not finishing.
IJ = Open to small changes, disorganised internally, organised externally, not prone to starting projects but prone to finishing.
EP = Open to small and large charges, disorganised internally, disorganised externally, not prone to starting projects or finishing.
EJ = Resistant to change, organised internally, organised externally, prone to starting projects and finishing.

It also makes sense using the functions:
IP = Leads with Ji, followed by Pe, Pi, Je
IJ = Leads with Pi, followed by Je, Ji, Pe
EP = Leads with Pe, followed by Ji, Je, Pi
EJ = Leads with Je, followed by Pi, Pe, Ji

Ji = Fi & Ti
Je = Fe & Te
Pi = Si & Ni
Pe = Se & Ne
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
@reckful can you link me source where i could read how to "decipher" MBTI letters and their combinations?
In a sense if: ISFJ = I + S + F + J + IS + IF + IJ + SF + SJ + FJ + ISF + ISJ + IFJ + SFJ + ISFJ. What all those letter combinations mean.
The 1985 Manual, which Myers co-authored, included a brief description corresponding to each of the 24 possible two-letter combinations.

And a 25-page section of the latest (1998) edition of the MBTI Step I Manual devotes a section to every two-letter combination, with both a description of the personality characteristics that people with both preferences tend to exhibit, and also (in most cases) a research roundup of noteworthy correlations with that combination.

I don't know of any online copies of those books that I can link to, unfortunately.

Keirsey, as you may know, spent a lot of Please Understand Me talking about a metric ass ton of things that he believed NFs, NTs, SJs and SPs had in common. And he made some significant mistakes, IMHO, but he also got a lot right, and I definitely think he's worth reading.

Also: as I'm always pointing out, the modern function descriptions that most forumites are familiar with are descriptions that have essentially been jerry-rigged to match up reasonably well with the MBTI types that purportedly have them as their dominant or auxiliary function. So, as Gnarthontuel has already noted, it's not uncommon to find that significant parts (at least) of reasonably decent "function" descriptions consist of aspects of personality that tend to be associated with the corresponding MBTI preference combinations.

If you want to read some of my thoughts on why I'm inclined to consider the INs my "kindred spirits" foursome, you'll find those in the spoiler at the end of this post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
The 1985 Manual, which Myers co-authored, included a brief description corresponding to each of the 24 possible two-letter combinations.

And a 25-page section of the latest (1998) edition of the MBTI Step I Manual devotes a section to every two-letter combination, with both a description of the personality characteristics that people with both preferences tend to exhibit, and also (in most cases) a research roundup of noteworthy correlations with that combination.

I don't know of any online copies of those books that I can link to, unfortunately.
Something similar may be found here. It's very, very brief and often pretty "I+T=IT", but at least it's something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Something similar may be found here. It's very, very brief and often pretty "I+T=IT", but at least it's something.
Thanks for digging that up. That borrows fairly heavily from the 1998 Manual descriptions, and if you look at the references list at the end, it notes that they've also included stuff from Keirsey, and from a couple other official sources.

And it's *FREE*, so it's a good page to refer forumites to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
The 1985 Manual, which Myers co-authored, included a brief description corresponding to each of the 24 possible two-letter combinations.

And a 25-page section of the latest (1998) edition of the MBTI Step I Manual devotes a section to every two-letter combination, with both a description of the personality characteristics that people with both preferences tend to exhibit, and also (in most cases) a research roundup of noteworthy correlations with that combination.

I don't know of any online copies of those books that I can link to, unfortunately.

Keirsey, as you may know, spent a lot of Please Understand Me talking about a metric ass ton of things that he believed NFs, NTs, SJs and SPs had in common. And he made some significant mistakes, IMHO, but he also got a lot right, and I definitely think he's worth reading.

Also: as I'm always pointing out, the modern function descriptions that most forumites are familiar with are descriptions that have essentially been jerry-rigged to match up reasonably well with the MBTI types that purportedly have them as their dominant or auxiliary function. So, as Gnarthontuel has already noted, it's not uncommon to find that significant parts (at least) of reasonably decent "function" descriptions consist of aspects of personality that tend to be associated with the corresponding MBTI preference combinations.

If you want to read some of my thoughts on why I'm inclined to consider the INs my "kindred spirits" foursome, you'll find those in the spoiler at the end of this post.
I absolutely love your description. I myself was wondering why INXXs are the most common in typology forums despite all 4 sharing no mutual function.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,739 Posts
I absolutely love your description. I myself was wondering why INXXs are the most common in typology forums despite all 4 sharing no mutual function.
That in itself is probably the biggest problem for the rigidly functional interpretation of MBTI. It is pretty clear that introversion and intuiting both correlate with a propensity to post online about MBTI (or about anything, really). This is a phenomenon that is completely inexplicable within the functional stack framework, and to invoke Kuhn's philosophy should prompt a paradigm shift away from the rigid adherence to functional stacks. That it evidently has not had this effect on typology forums despite this phenomenon having been known for years lends more credence than anything to the claim that MBTI is a pseudoscience (even though it still really doesn't, since it is about amateur applications of MBTI and not the meat of the theory).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,070 Posts
So the question answered itself. Grant Stack theory is literally everywhere over the internet. This letter explanation isn't easily available, so not much people know about it and i guess only a small fraction of MBTI community actually read those Manuals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PiT

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Only empirical research, meta studies included, can answer questions like that.
I wonder if there is a way to test this stuff. I certainly don't have the means to do it. :D


But as an anecdote to how I view my own opposites: A lot of it is "I could stand to be a bit more [trait]"
I imagined the extremes (I/E, N/S, T/F, etc.) to be angels and devils on my shoulder, the devil telling me what I want to do, the angel telling me what I should do. My inclinations are to be INTP and I often feel deficient in areas concerning, for example, social presence, social connection, implementation, physical comfort, structured environment, and common moral. And the part of me giving suggestions for improvement would be an ESFJ angel-on-my-shoulder. My ESFJ sister was touched (by what i said, not by me).

That being said, I ran this by an INFJ friend of mine who replied that her shoulder-angel would definitely not be ESTP (though she didn't offer an alternative). One difference between us is that on the 16personality test, she tested Assertive where I tested Turbulent (roughly, low vs. high in Neuroticism). That may be at play or I may be wrong.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top