Personality Cafe banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was thinking (sometimes dangerous being an INFP, I'm aware :wink:) and I thought if they only use to have 3 letters for each function (e.g INF, EST, INT, etc) and then they added one on after (which is literally just do you see the possibilites and stay opened minded or do you form judgements and stay structered) then perhaps there is an opputunity to create yet another function/letter to narrow down types even more. I see big differences in some actual types. It was good of them to break it down from 8 types to 16, it really narrows in to how the person thinks and really is able to target problem areas to help people to understand the problem people have with them and others have with them.

To me... the MBTI theory has been really helpful, it has helped me to see that people do not do most of what I thought they did out of spite or to deliberatelly be annoying (although it can seem like it) it is just because that is how they handle the world around them from their perspective.

I wonder if it could be narrowed down even more to include another function?

Like, literally the only thing I can think of is being near enough happy with the situation you are in vs trying to change it for the better. Which is kind of an idealism vs realism concept. Kind of slight take on 'living in the moment' vs 'planning ahead' idea, but I have seen people who use their intuition even paired up with J do not necessarily always plan ahead and sensors even paired up with P do not always live in the moment.

I think for me, it is the major difference between a person of a certain type who is very successful and another person of the same type who is not.

It is just hypothetical and was wondering what others thought of this because if there was a way to narrow things down even more (not saying it needs to be) hypothetically speaking what would it be?
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
I was thinking (sometimes dangerous being an INFP, I'm aware ) and I thought if they only use to have 3 letters for each function (e.g INF, EST, INT, etc) and then they added one on after (which is literally just do you see the possibilites and stay opened minded or do you form judgements and stay structered) then perhaps there is an opputunity to create yet another function/letter to narrow down types even more.
Other way around. If you are going to set up the paradigm you (and MBTI) have proposed you actually need to expand the types not narrow them down. Because what happens is you don't allow for a non-structured INFP for example. MBTI simply says that if you are a P you must be non-structured and J must be structured and does not allow for the possibility that a Ni-dom might prefer to be P-like (all Ni-doms must be J's in MBTI). So we actually have to devise a nomenclature that allows for types to be both closure seeking and non-closure seeking. Because its a little silly to say that ESFPs with their tertiary Te will always be non-closure seeking, surely a closure-seeking ESFP or ENFP exists.

By the way Fudjack and Dinkelaker did exactly what you are proposing and came up with a nomenclature to allow for this What We Mean When We Speak of the 'inFp', etc - A Critique of the J/P Designation in the MBTI
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Other way around. If you are going to set up the paradigm you (and MBTI) have proposed you actually need to expand the types not narrow them down.
Oh yes, that is essentially what I meant. :wink: I suppose I only said it like that meaning to narrow down the 'groups' rather than the 16 types. In the sense of say there are 30 people in a room 4 of them are INTP's, 4 of them are ENFJ's, 3 of them are ESFP's another 3 are ISTP's and other 3 are ENTJ's, 2 of them are INFP's, another 2 are ESFJ's, another 2 are ISFJ's, another 2 are ESTP's, another 2 are INTJ's, 1 of them is an ISFP, another 1 is INFJ and the other 1 is ISTJ.... to narrow it down it might mean that only 3 of them in the room have the same type. To me that is more awesome than having 3 or 4 in the room with the same type.

I mean yeah... it is good when you can meet and interact with someone of the same type, but I feel people might feel even more unique because there would be 32 types in total rather than 16.

Plus I feel the more the number of people in each catagory is lessened, the more problems can be really looked at.


It of course is entirely hypothetical and not to be taken too seriously.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top