This going to be quite long. I'm hoping that this will help to create a self typing resource that people can look at and get a very accurate idea of what it means to be a certain type, I'm sick of the terrible testing and type descriptions that are extensive and vague.
Let me know if this makes sense to you. I'm starting here on INFJ forum to see if the theory makes sense. If you guys think I'm on to something I'll be forum hopping and asking the different types to make descriptions using my idea, then we'll have a big old final list.
*****************************************************************
Function Sets
I've gone and had myself a big idea. It related to how functions are arranged in the mind, and how they relate to each other.
I've been thinking that functions are used in switching pairs of Extroversion and Introversion rather than in a 4 tiered fashion which is suggested by most tests and diagrams. I also think that measuring functions in use % is overly simplistic, out of context and ultimately pointless. Certain tests give out reading of all 8 functions, claiming that you can be very powerful in your use of both E and I feeling for example. I disagree wholeheartedly.
A lot of people mistype themselves and test incorrectly due to the vague nature of test questions and type descriptions that can be taken to have meaning different to that intended by the test maker.
Some investigation of functions must be made if someone is to even know what the 4 letter type name means and the names are only codes for knowing the first 2 functions. This is very lacking in depth as it completely leaves out the 3rd and 4th and how the 4 functions work together. A personality is a very deep, abstract thing and it moves.
So many confusing hurdles for the newly interested MBTI enthusiast! I think MBTI is very important and so we should have as much clarity as possible.
Static Shock
Here is the function list as displayed for INFJ, which is more in depth than the letter code.
1) iNtuition- Introverted
2) Feeling - Extroverted
3) Thinking - Introverted
4) Sensing - Extroverted
Still very lacking in context, the living action of the functions has been completely squeezed out. Functions are often portrayed as having physical size in relation to their order, the first being biggest, taking up nearly half the 'space' of the mind, then the 2nd, 3rd, 4th …perhaps they are light bulbs and this tells you how much time each one spends lit up?
I Don't agree with this at all, there is no movement. Here is my idea showing pairs of E and I functions using INFJ as an example. Notice the upper and lower case letters. In this system INFJ is labelled as:
I-(Nt) E-(Fs)
So rather than a distinct 4 functions we have blended function pairs, or sets, unique to each type.
Compare this to the INTJ functions:
I-(Nf) E-(Ts)
Normally stated as:
1)iNtuition - Introverted
2)Thinking - Extroverted
3)Feeling — Introverted
4)Sensing - Extroverted
You can see that it's not as simple as 4 separate functions with the largest common between us. The functions are blended, the use of each function is unique to a type and it’s behavior is dependent on the other in the set, that sets behavior is in turn linked with the 2nd set.
So Ni is not doing the same thing in INFJ, INTJ,ENTJ or ENFJ.
This means that for proper understanding of type, the sets must be taken into account. In looking for the usage of separate functions in people we flatten out the intricacies of unique set dynamics. Mistyping is EVERYWHERE, testing is TERRIBLE. Sometimes the more you look into a type or function, the further away you get from understanding. How can someone spend years thinking they are the wrong type? That's crazy.
Extraversion and Introversion
Take INTJ and ENTJ, both have I-(Nf) and E-(Ts)
I-(Nf) is the backup in the ENTJ and the main event in the INTJ, So even when an INTJ is in extroverted action, using the E set, the E actions are being controlled by the more powerful I-(Nf).
When the INTJ is being introverted, the lesser E-(Ts) is merely an advisor rather than controller, it suggests instead of steers.
This would be the opposite for an ENTJ, the E set steers always, the I set advises. So even with types that have the same sets they differ in their behaviour completely.
It is more than just an amount of time spent using a set, think of different circuits made from the same electrical components. They would have completely different uses.
Although Introverted and Extroverted types have different way of ‘recharging’ based on their preferences It is possible to use your preferred set far too much. An I may not need constant attention and socialising for the sake of socialising but they do need fulfilling interaction. An E needs to be careful to take time and carefully reflect on their life. If this doesn’t happen people can become unbalanced.
Sets in motion
Many INxJ people mistype as each other, I repeatedly tested as INTJ myself. There was no way I was ever letting go of the T , I think all the time. Does this mean that my 3rd place Ti is well developed? That it has an abnormally high % of use? NO.
I-(Nt) advised by E-(Fs): Preferred Operation
I use I-(Nt) as my main set. I am using Ti constantly with Ni. It is the lens through which the abstract clouds of Ni are manifest into usable projections, it is the order (t) from the (N) chaos. The guiding benevolence of E-(Fs) gives these strange machinations a human goal, the plan or system must help people, the information must teach (F). Finally It must fit into the physical world (s) .
With a constant use of t can you see how it would be possible to believe you are actually a T? Without Ti the INFJ has no Ni, you can’t look at functions individually. Without E-(Fs) the INFJ has no I-(Nt).
E-(Fs) steered by I-(Nt): Secondary Social operation
The conversation takes a suprising tone. The facial expressions (s) and psychological context of what this person is saying (F) hint at something deeper than the task at hand. It brings to mind several other things, other conversations we’ve had, other things that I know ….. this undoubtedly reveals to me ____ about this person(Nt).
These are just two examples. Of course each type will think about every topic and context in a way unique to their function pattern.
As all 4 functions are used continuously it is very easy to hang onto one in particular and believe it to be ‘used more’ and so think you are the wrong type.
Blending problems
The functions work completely uniquely in each of the 16 myers briggs personality types. It is more than merely a difference in the amount of time spent using a function.
There are 8 different ways to use Fi, Se, Ni, Te, 8 different ways to use Fe, Si, Ti, Ne.
The subtlety of these differences is too fine and internal for its unique role in a type to be described in its full detail by anyone of a different type.
So that means even for an INFJ, someone who is naturally inclined to think of information in a psychological context , is not qualified to describe even the exact use of Ni in their closest relation, the INTJ. How could we? We don’t experience the blending of Ni with Fi, and how that set is advised by the lesser set.
When reading about individual functions as described by others you are creating dis-chord in your own mind, you leave the intricacy and delicacy of your self-image polluted by the childish emulation, the crude finger painting, of someone who has never and will never understand exactly what it means to be you. We may see the results, we may see the trends in your behavior, but we will never directly experience your functions.
*******************************************************************
So what do you think?
Let me know if this makes sense to you. I'm starting here on INFJ forum to see if the theory makes sense. If you guys think I'm on to something I'll be forum hopping and asking the different types to make descriptions using my idea, then we'll have a big old final list.
*****************************************************************
Function Sets
I've gone and had myself a big idea. It related to how functions are arranged in the mind, and how they relate to each other.
I've been thinking that functions are used in switching pairs of Extroversion and Introversion rather than in a 4 tiered fashion which is suggested by most tests and diagrams. I also think that measuring functions in use % is overly simplistic, out of context and ultimately pointless. Certain tests give out reading of all 8 functions, claiming that you can be very powerful in your use of both E and I feeling for example. I disagree wholeheartedly.
A lot of people mistype themselves and test incorrectly due to the vague nature of test questions and type descriptions that can be taken to have meaning different to that intended by the test maker.
Some investigation of functions must be made if someone is to even know what the 4 letter type name means and the names are only codes for knowing the first 2 functions. This is very lacking in depth as it completely leaves out the 3rd and 4th and how the 4 functions work together. A personality is a very deep, abstract thing and it moves.
So many confusing hurdles for the newly interested MBTI enthusiast! I think MBTI is very important and so we should have as much clarity as possible.
Static Shock
Here is the function list as displayed for INFJ, which is more in depth than the letter code.
1) iNtuition- Introverted
2) Feeling - Extroverted
3) Thinking - Introverted
4) Sensing - Extroverted
Still very lacking in context, the living action of the functions has been completely squeezed out. Functions are often portrayed as having physical size in relation to their order, the first being biggest, taking up nearly half the 'space' of the mind, then the 2nd, 3rd, 4th …perhaps they are light bulbs and this tells you how much time each one spends lit up?
I Don't agree with this at all, there is no movement. Here is my idea showing pairs of E and I functions using INFJ as an example. Notice the upper and lower case letters. In this system INFJ is labelled as:
I-(Nt) E-(Fs)
So rather than a distinct 4 functions we have blended function pairs, or sets, unique to each type.
Compare this to the INTJ functions:
I-(Nf) E-(Ts)
Normally stated as:
1)iNtuition - Introverted
2)Thinking - Extroverted
3)Feeling — Introverted
4)Sensing - Extroverted
You can see that it's not as simple as 4 separate functions with the largest common between us. The functions are blended, the use of each function is unique to a type and it’s behavior is dependent on the other in the set, that sets behavior is in turn linked with the 2nd set.
So Ni is not doing the same thing in INFJ, INTJ,ENTJ or ENFJ.
This means that for proper understanding of type, the sets must be taken into account. In looking for the usage of separate functions in people we flatten out the intricacies of unique set dynamics. Mistyping is EVERYWHERE, testing is TERRIBLE. Sometimes the more you look into a type or function, the further away you get from understanding. How can someone spend years thinking they are the wrong type? That's crazy.
Extraversion and Introversion
Take INTJ and ENTJ, both have I-(Nf) and E-(Ts)
I-(Nf) is the backup in the ENTJ and the main event in the INTJ, So even when an INTJ is in extroverted action, using the E set, the E actions are being controlled by the more powerful I-(Nf).
When the INTJ is being introverted, the lesser E-(Ts) is merely an advisor rather than controller, it suggests instead of steers.
This would be the opposite for an ENTJ, the E set steers always, the I set advises. So even with types that have the same sets they differ in their behaviour completely.
It is more than just an amount of time spent using a set, think of different circuits made from the same electrical components. They would have completely different uses.
Although Introverted and Extroverted types have different way of ‘recharging’ based on their preferences It is possible to use your preferred set far too much. An I may not need constant attention and socialising for the sake of socialising but they do need fulfilling interaction. An E needs to be careful to take time and carefully reflect on their life. If this doesn’t happen people can become unbalanced.
Sets in motion
Many INxJ people mistype as each other, I repeatedly tested as INTJ myself. There was no way I was ever letting go of the T , I think all the time. Does this mean that my 3rd place Ti is well developed? That it has an abnormally high % of use? NO.
I-(Nt) advised by E-(Fs): Preferred Operation
I use I-(Nt) as my main set. I am using Ti constantly with Ni. It is the lens through which the abstract clouds of Ni are manifest into usable projections, it is the order (t) from the (N) chaos. The guiding benevolence of E-(Fs) gives these strange machinations a human goal, the plan or system must help people, the information must teach (F). Finally It must fit into the physical world (s) .
With a constant use of t can you see how it would be possible to believe you are actually a T? Without Ti the INFJ has no Ni, you can’t look at functions individually. Without E-(Fs) the INFJ has no I-(Nt).
E-(Fs) steered by I-(Nt): Secondary Social operation
The conversation takes a suprising tone. The facial expressions (s) and psychological context of what this person is saying (F) hint at something deeper than the task at hand. It brings to mind several other things, other conversations we’ve had, other things that I know ….. this undoubtedly reveals to me ____ about this person(Nt).
These are just two examples. Of course each type will think about every topic and context in a way unique to their function pattern.
As all 4 functions are used continuously it is very easy to hang onto one in particular and believe it to be ‘used more’ and so think you are the wrong type.
Blending problems
The functions work completely uniquely in each of the 16 myers briggs personality types. It is more than merely a difference in the amount of time spent using a function.
There are 8 different ways to use Fi, Se, Ni, Te, 8 different ways to use Fe, Si, Ti, Ne.
The subtlety of these differences is too fine and internal for its unique role in a type to be described in its full detail by anyone of a different type.
So that means even for an INFJ, someone who is naturally inclined to think of information in a psychological context , is not qualified to describe even the exact use of Ni in their closest relation, the INTJ. How could we? We don’t experience the blending of Ni with Fi, and how that set is advised by the lesser set.
When reading about individual functions as described by others you are creating dis-chord in your own mind, you leave the intricacy and delicacy of your self-image polluted by the childish emulation, the crude finger painting, of someone who has never and will never understand exactly what it means to be you. We may see the results, we may see the trends in your behavior, but we will never directly experience your functions.
*******************************************************************
So what do you think?
