Personality Cafe banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,331 Posts
I think it's a valuable resource, and credible, I like it a lot.
Very informative, in-depth - covers all four of ones top four functions brilliantly, imo - and it even has some questions for people to consider in order to gauge whether they prefer particular functions or not.

I use it in conjunction with a couple of other great resources:

Personality Types - An Owners Manual by Lenore Thompson
Was That Really Me? - Naomi Quenk
Neuroscience of Personality - Dario Nardi
8 Keys to Self-Leadership - Dario Nardi
Gifts Differing - Myers and Myers
My True Type - AJ Drenth
16 Personality Types - AJ Drenth
Psychological Types - Carl Jung
Depth Typology - Mark Hunziker
Please Understand Me II - David Keirsey
Writing and Personality: Finding Your Voice, Your Style, Your Way - John DiTiberio

Amongst others - honourable mention to this page, it's short, but it helps understand Ne and Ni:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101218112341/http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exegesis/Intuition

As far as I'm concerned, MBTI-notes is just as good as those books - and it completely destroys practically every other online MBTI resource, such as thoughtcatalogue, personalitypage etc, and all those annoying ones people keep spamming in Facebook groups that are just "How the types deal with X" etc, you know the ones. Absolute trash.

It covers cognitive function theory, dichotomy, has a cheat sheet, a type spotting guide, I mean, as far as I'm concerned it's pretty much 'comprehensive' and you should be able to nail your true type based purely on the information from that website.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,131 Posts
I think MBTI-notes is definitely better than a lot of other info out there. Of course, I disagree with some things... but I think the overall framework they present is pretty good. Love how they point out type isn't behavior, but a cognitive process. I suppose I have quibbles about function descriptions, but overall it's pretty good.

I like Dario Nardi's Neuroscience of Personality as well. It's light reading too, and very fun if you're at all interested in how your brain works. My go-to is definitely Psychological Types, though I know that can be tough to understand especially when you're new to typology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
I prefer reiterating and dissecting what Jung said and fit that to my own observations to whatever extent it may help understand, indicate and predict the behavior and communication of others. Since I do see some insight in his work, although not nearly enough to make a reliable typing system. MBTI-notes seems to rely heavily on Quenk from what I skimmed through; while it might be perfectly reasonable on its own it's fundamentally a flawed idea to combine jungian functions (+ stacks especially) and MBTI dichtomies, since both are already defined separately with the pretense they hold something in common - notion which does not last closer inspection. This is like combining two pieces together that were never designed to go together...

Relying on Jung is problematic as one expects to be able to use a certain distinction he made in his time which means one also might not be responsive to contemporary discoveries conserning cognition. Jung may have been attempting to create a holistic diagnostic tool, whereas MB went for a quick indicator of "personality" that could be turned into a quick buck. Most of these sources attempting to approach these separate tools to synthesize a final form, distinguished type out of it, are thus deeply unreliable. I can understand the ambition, but I find it ultimately illogical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,958 Posts
Hello! I decided to make this a series of collecting everyone's opinions of a given Jung source to see which are reliable.
I don't get it. You'll easily find consensus this way, but I don't see how that helps with reliability?

On this episode of Your Take, MBTI-Notes ! Give me your say!!
I looked up Si, since that's the usual giveaway. They say that Si is about remembering things. So it's completely opposed to the definitions.

Sensation is about processing the present sensations. Introversion is about subjective interpretation. Put them together, and you don't get anything to do with the past. If they fail this badly on Si, I can't see them succeeding on anything else.

Psychological Types - Carl Jung
Please Understand Me II - David Keirsey
Jung used cognitive functions exclusively. Keirsey denounced using cognitive functions entirely.

It seems really deceptive to put them in the same list when they are completely opposed to one another.

it's fundamentally a flawed idea to combine jungian functions (+ stacks especially) and MBTI dichtomies, since both are already defined separately with the pretense they hold something in common - notion which does not last closer inspection. This is like combining two pieces together that were never designed to go together...
Couldn't have put it better myself.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,331 Posts
Jung used cognitive functions exclusively. Keirsey denounced using cognitive functions entirely.

It seems really deceptive to put them in the same list when they are completely opposed to one another.
I couldn't give two shits and am comfortable developing my own understanding which is a combination of whatever the hell I want to read + my own 2p.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jewl

·
Plague Doctor
INTJ, 5w4, Ni-T type
Joined
·
6,039 Posts
Jung used cognitive functions exclusively. Keirsey denounced using cognitive functions entirely.

It seems really deceptive to put them in the same list when they are completely opposed to one another.
I have often found that conflicting opinions help me make better sense of a theory as they often give different perspectives. Each time I look at a theorist, I see the theory through their filter. Besides, I have found that studying the different stages of the theory (especially the person who came up with the theory), helps me to put together where it has been and where it is going. It also reveals weakness and strength. Without Jung, Keirsey wouldn't have any material to analyze.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,856 Posts
I looked up Si, since that's the usual giveaway. They say that Si is about remembering things. So it's completely opposed to the definitions.
Sensation is about processing the present sensations. Introversion is about subjective interpretation. Put them together, and you don't get anything to do with the past. If they fail this badly on Si, I can't see them succeeding on anything else.
I don't see that, at least on the main page. The definition of Si in the table is "compares sensory details", which is what leads to the "subjective interpretation" you mentioned. This is what will often involve memory, but I don't see where they said it was "about" memory. What they said was "Si should help you accumulate and remember detailed knowledge of important standards, rules, and procedures that should be followed to achieve goals successfully." Again, that's the comparing of sensory detail that yields the subjective interpretation of it. In other words, when presented with emergent (current) situations, they will apply the subjective interpretation of it from what they had previously learned, which will inform their decisions with the knowledge of the rules, standards, etc.

Jung used cognitive functions exclusively. Keirsey denounced using cognitive functions entirely.

It seems really deceptive to put them in the same list when they are completely opposed to one another.

it's fundamentally a flawed idea to combine jungian functions (+ stacks especially) and MBTI dichtomies, since both are already defined separately with the pretense they hold something in common - notion which does not last closer inspection. This is like combining two pieces together that were never designed to go together...
Couldn't have put it better myself.
I think Linda Berens' approach is the best, as she puts them all together as different "angles" of personality to look through. Just because each model (such as dichotomies vs functions) may seem to be different from each other, they are simply different aspects of the same things. Like if you take the dominant and auxiliary functions, then right there, you have the middle two dichotomies of the type code, and if you know which is dominant, then that right there directly tells you the first dichotomy, and it also completes the last dichotomy, which would be shared by anyone else whose dominant is a judgment or perceiving function like yours (i.e. there will be some common behavior, which the MBTI questionnaire will pick up).
Also, considering the dominant's shadow (i.e. opposite attitude) will back it up (in common lingo, be "used" a lot), and the shadow of the auxiliary might as well, so you can collapse the attitudes back down to dichotomies, but realize that each will be preferred in their respective primary attitudes.

I would agree with @Gilead that likely "MB went for a quick indicator of 'personality' that could be turned into a quick buck." Jung was very dense, and Myers' was already trying to create a more simple "four type" model like Social Styles, but then folded Jung into it, until the "four types" became the dichotomies, with the first and last becoming the "pointer variables" of the function attitude and position. So four dichotomies they determined were easier for the general public to handle than eight function-attitudes in a particular order, and that is likely why MBTI used dichotomies.

I think the site is almost perfect, except for:

For a variety of reasons that I will not get into here, I remain unconvinced by full stack models so far because they do not postulate anything that cannot already be explained by primary stack models. While people may use shadow functions in limited ways, I do not consider them important for understanding type development and thus will not be covering them in this guide.
This is the same thing touched on by what I just said; the shadows simply being the same function dichotomies in the opposite attitude. The attitudes are different, and distinguishing them does provide more "depth". Like Ti doms will often describe all their emotional reactions in terms of "inferior Fe", but then the mistake right there is that "expressed emotion"=Fe. But part of the reason that many have trouble verifying between NTP and NFP is because the Fi that shadows their Fe does come up as well, but it's a matter of understanding its role in the stack.
So then, he seems to be very selective of what comments he answers, and so when I tried contacting and explaining how Beebe just released a book on his model, and explained that it was about "complexes", he never posted it.

I think understanding Beebe's model, and in terms of "complexes" (which is a more commonly understood element of psychology) would help sort that out, and now that he has his own book out on it (where before, the sources on it were very scant and spotty), and another person, Mark Hunziker also simultaneously put a book out on the model, it should really be given a new look.

Instead, what I've been seeing more, is people using the Socionics stack. So it's not that everyone is averse to an eight function stack, but its that Socionics is what seems to have developed one more readily (and the same with things such as quadras and intertype dynamics, which others have also more recently added for Western type). But again, the notion of archetypal complexes sounds like it makes more sense than the roles (which Socionics calls the actual "functions"), though there do seem to be some loose parallels between them.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top