Personality Cafe banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
ESFJ
Joined
·
486 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I have been analysing correlation between MBTI preferences and cognitive functions, and noticed that preferences are pentachotomy, but with redefinition of perceiver/judger preference:

  • [introvert/extrovert] "introvert function the most dominant" / "extrovert function the most dominant"
  • [sensation/intuition] "sensation input function more dominant" / "intuition input function more dominant"
  • [thinking/feeling] "thinking output function more dominant" / "feeling output function more dominant"
  • [forward/backward] "introvert input function more dominant" / "extrovert input function more dominant"
  • [perceiver/cognizer] "introvert output function more dominant" / "extrovert output function more dominant"
To explain, "preferred input path" is "forward; abstract into concrete" / "backward; concrete into abstract" and "preferred output path" is "perceiver; inner moral" / "cognizer; outer moral".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,957 Posts
I have been analysing correlation between MBTI preferences and cognitive functions, and noticed that preferences are pentachotomy, but with redefinition of perceiver/judger preference:

  • [introvert/extrovert] "introvert function the most dominant" / "extrovert function the most dominant"
  • [sensation/intuition] "sensation input function more dominant" / "intuition input function more dominant"
  • [thinking/feeling] "thinking output function more dominant" / "feeling output function more dominant"
  • [forward/backward] "introvert input function more dominant" / "extrovert input function more dominant"
  • [perceiver/cognizer] "introvert output function more dominant" / "extrovert output function more dominant"
To explain, "preferred input path" is "forward; abstract into concrete" / "backward; concrete into abstract" and "preferred output path" is "perceiver; inner moral" / "cognizer; outer moral".
It sounds a little bit like introverted and extroverted versions of cognitive functions. It could be interesting to see those additions play out, but I'm not sure that they would add much (if anything) new to the types that isn't already there. One could argue that iNtuatives work from abstract to concrete and that sensors work from concrete to abstract. One could also argue that Fi is more focused on inner morals (because it is) and that Fe is more focused on outer morals.

So the trouble here is finding something new that this fifth preference (and remade fourth) add that is worth disrupting the previous system. It is, however, a cool idea. I've often pondered the possibility of a fifth preference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AW10

·
Registered
Joined
·
221 Posts
cool post!

Is the forward/backward axis orthogonal respect the others? because the concept of dimensions needs orthogonality between axis, i.e. varying position in one dimension have to had no effect in the other dimensions.

However, I agree MTBI falls short in defining current position, but is not the neurotiscism (stress) dimension the one missing? but this leads to a more primary question, MTBI is about defining potencial "positions" of an individual, or to defining the current state. Because neurotiscism is highly volatile, situational and environmental dependent.
 

·
Registered
ESFJ
Joined
·
486 Posts
Discussion Starter #4 (Edited)
It sounds a little bit like introverted and extroverted versions of cognitive functions. It could be interesting to see those additions play out, but I'm not sure that they would add much (if anything) new to the types that isn't already there. One could argue that iNtuatives work from abstract to concrete and that sensors work from concrete to abstract. One could also argue that Fi is more focused on inner morals (because it is) and that Fe is more focused on outer morals.

So the trouble here is finding something new that this fifth preference (and remade fourth) add that is worth disrupting the previous system. It is, however, a cool idea. I've often pondered the possibility of a fifth preference.
Well, adding it to the types demands separating types from cognitive functions, because according to given correlation, there cannot be anything else but these two combinations: "forward + cognizer" / "backward + perceiver", resulting in the two preferences falling back to the one that was before.

So, my idea is to split "perceiver/judger" preference into two preferences and reduce MBTI to preferences itself, making users pick any combination of preferences they would like, regardless of cognitive functions. However, we can still produce types by functions itself, as my MBTI 2.0 system does.

cool post!

Is the forward/backward axis orthogonal respect the others? because the concept of dimensions needs orthogonality between axis, i.e. varying position in one dimension have to had no effect in the other dimensions.

However, I agree MTBI falls short in defining current position, but is not the neurotiscism (stress) dimension the one missing? but this leads to a more primary question, MTBI is about defining potencial "positions" of an individual, or to defining the current state. Because neurotiscism is highly volatile, situational and environmental dependent.
Well, considering my comment above, we can have orthogonality if we split MBTI into two systems. On the other hand, in that case, both of resulting systems would be used to show person's design, and person can still go against own design. In other words, current state is themed by MBTI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Hey. :) This little bit makes sense for me in pursuing "understanding myself". Because of this, I would want this "theory" to be developed regardless! Thank you for your input.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top