Personality Cafe banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
There are 8 functions.
Each personality type has 4; 2 extroverted and 2 introverted.
They have a particular order.

Which exact functions and which exact order is not objective facts. It's rather something that is discovered by guessing.
Just because it is discovered by guessing does not mean that it cannot be real. But it is not real in an objective sense, but rather like a lens one uses to view people. If one ceases to use that lens and start using some other lens, the old conceptions won't necessarily hold true in the new context.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
There are 8 functions.
Each personality type has 4; 2 extroverted and 2 introverted.
They have a particular order.

Which exact functions and which exact order is not objective facts. It's rather something that is discovered by guessing.
Just because it is discovered by guessing does not mean that it cannot be real. But it is not real in an objective sense, but rather like a lens one uses to view people. If one ceases to use that lens and start using some other lens, the old conceptions won't necessarily hold true in the new context.
Please elaborate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
Please elaborate.
I mean that when you associate different behaviors with different functions, you are projecting your own thoughts (or MBTI thougths) onto another person. In reality it is something that resides in your head, not necessarily in the other person.

When you come up with these beliefs you will find contradictions, these contradictions you may overlook in favor of your theories. It might be true within what you've conceived, within your framework, but it is highly subjective.

Right now you may see the world through the 16 types. You can spot them anywhere. Some other time you might see the world through some other lens and it will be entirely different.

I think these functions are a highly limited system. Sure you might see people who continuously express behaviors from one function and not its counterpart. Like a person expressing behaviors you associate with Fi and not behaviors you associate with Fe. Other than that, that person may also say he/she associates more with the description of Fi than Fe.

And sure, from this he/she is qualified to be a Fi in your framework (although things have been overlooked since this is more of a guessing game than drawing scientific conclusions based on empirical data).

I think that reality is a subjective experience and that humans are far more complex than most care to admit. They are not something that really can be quantified with a system like this. In my framework personality is a mystery in the same way an undiscovered galaxy might be.
 

·
Registered
4w5
Joined
·
1,535 Posts
I mean that when you associate different behaviors with different functions, you are projecting your own thoughts (or MBTI thougths) onto another person. In reality it is something that resides in your head, not necessarily in the other person.

When you come up with these beliefs you will find contradictions, these contradictions you may overlook in favor of your theories. It might be true within what you've conceived, within your framework, but it is highly subjective.

Right now you may see the world through the 16 types. You can spot them anywhere. Some other time you might see the world through some other lens it will be entirely different.

I think these functions are a highly limited system. Sure you might see people who continuously express behaviors from one function and not its counterpart. Like a person expressing behaviors you associate with Fi and not behaviors you associate with Fe. Other than that, that person may also say he/she associates more with the description of Fi than Fe.

And sure, from this he/she is qualified to be a Fi in your framework (although things have been overlooked since this is more of a guessing game than drawing scientific conclusions based on empirical data).

I think that reality is a subjective experience and that humans are far more complex than most care to admit. They are not something that really can be quantified with a system like this. In my framework personality is a mystery in the same way an undiscovered galaxy might be.
I agree that the functions are not objective. You see people through a limited, systematical lense and when they do something that does not fit the functions you have placed on them, you wonder if you have mistyped them. Personalities cannot be placed in a box and be there forever. The box will explode.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,800 Posts
Doesn't it make sense we would process through both subjective and objective. Our subjective thoughts bring us a sense of Individually, where our objective thoughts give us a sense of ration and reason/or logic. I think we need both to function properly and keep us mentally/emotionally balanced.

Take Fe for example, If Fe wasn't an objective function, why do so many people adhere to this social principle. If we were to say that social norms for Fe is nothing but pure manipulation would this mean the world is filled with fakes, people who adhere to popular opinion as cultish. So does this mean everyone is foolish following the crowd emotionally. Fi actually sees it this way somewhat, however Fe has their balance of Ti to adhere to their subjective thinking( or personal reasoning ) The same can be said for Fi, although it does adhere to subjective personal principes, we lean on our Te to sort and process objective material.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raawx

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,130 Posts
I mean that when you associate different behaviors with different functions, you are projecting your own thoughts (or MBTI thougths) onto another person. In reality it is something that resides in your head, not necessarily in the other person.

When you come up with these beliefs you will find contradictions, these contradictions you may overlook in favor of your theories. It might be true within what you've conceived, within your framework, but it is highly subjective.

Right now you may see the world through the 16 types. You can spot them anywhere. Some other time you might see the world through some other lens and it will be entirely different.

I think these functions are a highly limited system. Sure you might see people who continuously express behaviors from one function and not its counterpart. Like a person expressing behaviors you associate with Fi and not behaviors you associate with Fe. Other than that, that person may also say he/she associates more with the description of Fi than Fe.

And sure, from this he/she is qualified to be a Fi in your framework (although things have been overlooked since this is more of a guessing game than drawing scientific conclusions based on empirical data).

I think that reality is a subjective experience and that humans are far more complex than most care to admit. They are not something that really can be quantified with a system like this. In my framework personality is a mystery in the same way an undiscovered galaxy might be.
MBTI has 16, Enneagram has 9, with at minimum 18 combinations when adding wings typing. Socionics has 16- and is variant from MBTI (for instance, I'm SEI- which would translate as ISFP even though that is not what I am, according to MBTI). Then you can deeper, by discussing dominate modalities within the NLP context (whether you process information in visual, audio terms) of which there are 5. Then we can add whether we tend to act predominately in a "moving forward, moving against, moving away" manner- which is 3.

So, we can, using the terminology expressed, describe up to 16*9*16*5*3, or 34,560 combinations of perspective of reality through the lens of personality dynamics, without even bringing Enneagram wing variants into play.

That doesn't seem limiting to me. Even if we did this strictly in just those terms- we can further delineate- if there was equal representation (there is not), you are talking about 1 out of 202,547 people sharing the same exact perspective on the planet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,503 Posts
This first become a problem when you put values on function. What does it mean that Ti is 3th function? What does it mean Ti is 2th function? Does Ti as 2th means it is much better then 3th? ect. Can people have Ni and Ti and then Fe? Why not I am much stronger Ti then Fe. ect. It is your understanding that is subjective...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,503 Posts
of course it is not objective.

all of psychology is not objective

lmao.
At least that is the general opinion. Since if we could say it was objective, that would lead to lots of questions of existentialism and such and all that hate Freudians gain would be harassment. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
There are hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences, and unlike, say, astrology, temperament psychology — in any of its better-established varieties, including the Myers-Briggs typology and the Big Five — belongs (along with most of psychology) in the "soft science" category.

Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality. Myers adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she gathered from thousands of subjects, and by the start of the 1960s (as the leading Big Five psychologists have acknowledged), she had a typology that was respectably tapping into four of the Big Five personality dimensions — long before there really was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that identical twins raised in separate households are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs, which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to real, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality. They're a long way from being simply theoretical — or pseudoscientific — categories with no respectable evidence behind them.

Anyone who's interested can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this post and in this post (also linked to in the first linked post).

But it's worth noting that the scientifically respectable side of the MBTI is the dichotomy-centric side — and the dichotomies differ greatly from the so-called "cognitive functions" in that regard. The functions — which James Reynierse (in a 2009 article linked to below) rightly (IMHO) characterizes as a "category mistake" — have barely even been studied, and the reason they've barely been studied is that, unlike the dichotomies, they've never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists. Going all the way back to 1985, the MBTI Manual described or referred to somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,500 MBTI studies and, as I understand it, not one of the many study-based correlations reported in the manual were framed in terms of the functions. The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, as Reynierse notes in that same article, it cited a grand total of eight studies involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — which Reynierse summarizes as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes: "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

Finally, anyone who's a glutton for punishment and wants to read more from me about the dubious Harold Grant function stack (the one that says INTJs and INTPs have no functions in common), 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, can find quite a lot of additional commentary in this post, this post, this post and this long INTJforum post (also linked to in one or two of the others) about "why I'm a dichotomies guy."

----------------------------------------------------------------

Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for two of the links in that last linked post:

McCrae & Costa article (click on the pic on the right to access the full article)
Reynierse article
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Yea.

There is an item existing. But we can only see it from our eyes.

Our eyes all fliter it differently, like an Instagram filters. Each personality sees the item through a different Instagram filter. So we ALL see things subjectively. We can never know the object truly, we can only see it with our biased filter.

So say the "object" was actually a topic.
Say gun rights. We each filter will the information in a little different color and conclude right or wrong based on that filter's perspective.
But all sides are just perspectives. We all are just observing through our own Instagram filter, never being able to truly see the object objectively. So we can't say which perspective is correct, they are all just different perspectives. Only the item is truth. Our perspectives are just filters.


But this is true for everything. When we look at it this way, everything we know is being experienced subjectively, so subjectivity becomes full of merit.

I beleive each 16 types have common ways of viewing items, like they are the same filter. Each filter casts shadows on the same parts and highlights other parts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,503 Posts
Yea.

There is an item existing. But we can only see it from our eyes.

Our eyes all fliter it differently, like an Instagram filters. Each personality sees the item through a different Instagram filter. So we ALL see things subjectively. We can never know the object truly, we can only see it with our biased filter.

So say the "object" was actually a topic.
Say gun rights. We each filter will the information in a little different color and conclude right or wrong based on that filter's perspective.
But all sides are just perspectives. We all are just observing through our own Instagram filter, never being able to truly see the object objectively. So we can't say which perspective is correct, they are all just different perspectives. Only the item is truth. Our perspectives are just filters.


But this is true for everything. When we look at it this way, everything we know is being experienced subjectively, so subjectivity becomes full of merit.

I beleive each 16 types have common ways of viewing items, like they are the same filter. Each filter casts shadows on the same parts and highlights other parts.
Id say yes. But also objective. I do some stuffs objectivly in a subjective blurr of Ni and Ti. ;D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,261 Posts
I couldn't agree more.
The longer I study this, the less I enjoy it. It starts to box the world into a very limited view after a while(for me at least).
I find myself linking things to cognitive functions way too often. Limiting people i see and interact with. In a way, it makes life lose it's surprise and mystery when it comes to people. It all gets way too mechanical and robotic.

It works for now, when I view people this way, but at what cost? for me it's starting to lose its value.

The only time i really see positives anymore is when i am i a depressed state. Reading about my inferior functions generally helps significantly. Other than that, it comes to a lot of drawbacks in the way i've started to use the system over the past 6 years.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top