Beyond MBTI

Oscillation

Oscillation

Community Member
MBTI
INFJ
Let me talk about what some doesn't dare or want to talk about - because as soon as you mention any flaws in the system, you are being kept as an intruder or an "unbeliever" etc. I want to criticize the model, but let me first off compare the MBTI-model with models in physics.

A parable
Gravity. For most of us gravity is something very palpable. We don't question the concequenses of it nor the very nature of gravitation. Newton was somewhat the first to offer a model of how it all works, and history of men developed as we found out that we could explain nature by laws, rules and... models. But a couple of hundred years later there were findings that meant there were flaws in Newtons model F=mg. It didn't fit with reality in all cases.

Oh noes! Doom to us all! The world is falling apart! If gravity isn't real for all the situation, what will then happen? No, it cannot be, is has not to be, it will not!

What happend was that physicists made an other model, one that fit with reality better, in a way, but was much more complex and thus ungainly for us to use in those "normal" events that happens on earth. So we still us Newtons model of gravity - because it's still true!

What?! Is it still true? But didn't you just say that it wasn't?

Models in science are never truely true. Period. They are models of reality as we sees and understand it. They are true as long as they work, but every model must have their boundaries, so that we know in what circumstances they're working.

The topic
This it also true for the MBTI model of personality types. So if we can't talk about it's flaws without being aggressive or overly protective about it, then we probably never will reach to deeper understandings of the personalities... and the universe, for that matter. We have to understand that letting other perspectives in isn't nessecerily going to lead to that we find out that MBTI isn't true. Of course MBTI is true! We all have answered questions, and those questions are hopefully truthfully answered, and then the answere we get is an answere built on them.

So I want to look beyond MBTI, not reject MBTI. How come INFJ's are called a complex type when I found out that every type is a complex type? How come types with an introverted Thinking (Ti) "has to" think internally, and speak up only when finished a thought? I myself often get to think with my mouth, externally, but with emotions, thus bringing me to doubt my type because of it's square understanding of the human psyche. An other parable: there are certain areas in the human brain that's used for mathematical thinking, and others for vision. Findings have shown that there are some people that use their part of the brain for vision when calculation mathematics, thus bringing them to be super fast (a parable in the parable: when we wan't a computer to cumpute algorithms faster, we let the grafic card handle it because it's much faster. The same goes for the human brain. We know how to handle vision more than mathematic, and that gives us a much more developed part of the brain in those areas). So if you nessecarilly can't tell how humans cumpute math in their brain, well how come we're tying to squeeze every person into a box telling them "you're using both external Thinking and Feeling. You're doing it wrong!", because this person maybe computed thoughts though emotions.

But then again, these concepts "Feeling" and "Thinking" aren't nessecerily "emotions" and "thoughts"... but that is what I read between the lines when reading on the internet. They say everyone has emotions and thoughts, right, but talks about how individuals are showing emotions or not, speaking thoughts or not. I find this a little confusing. Weren't "Feeling" and "Thinking" about making descisions based on ethics or logic?

I myself almost always (90%) tests as an INFJ.
My mother probably is an INFJ
My brothers fiancée tested an INFJ yesterday.

I canot and will not say that either one of us ARE NOT an INFJ, because I can see the traits being true. I can see them answere each question in the test correctly, and belive myself doing the same after taking about 20 different tests. But how come there are so many INFJ's? A hot topic.

I'm not looking to be another sceptic, but I'm searching for truth - always the truth!
So when I'm bringing up this topic I understand I'm giving those other "bad guys" an opertunity to lift their critical voice, I would hope they wouldn't unless they were kind and thruthful. I will post this topic anyway...


Let's talk about the flaws in curious matter, not condemning.
 
I agree with your point of view. I had similar questions when i first studied mbti. Now I have moved past it because it only offers a small part of the complexity of any type of human. The only thing I would say is that the reason INFJs are seem as complex is not because of the functions but because society and cultures have a hard time lending support and understanding and guiding an INFJ to it's full potential. This is seen in family dynamics, school systems and any other community setting where the infj may reside. This inability for other types to support an infj makes an infj appear as "special" or complex but they are not. INFJ assimilation into a majority extroverted world creates tension; giving the illusion that infjs have a more complex nature. The issue stems from the inability of most infjs to understand themselves; thus giving off an appearance of mystery.
 
Hmm. Well said!
I'm leaning towards leaving "funktions teori" behind and keeping Carl Jungs original personality teori. It's possible I might go insane otherwise, looking for patterns in what might be "external behaviour" or "internal behaviour" in other human beings. Let humans be humans, and not objects or studie... primarily. A person, and thus a personality, isn't nessicerily that easy to analyze in it's whole complexity - an obvious truth, you might say, but still a deep insight that has to be brought up over and over again.
 
I believe there are some inconsistencies between sites and their descriptions of each dichotomy.

One might say there are no preferens for emotions in Feeling, since both Feeling and Thinking is rational and they both have feelings, but another will still test for emotional presens in the external world, and might define Feeling as a preferens of emotions.

There's also a differens in Judging and Perception between sites, where one might say it's about how you preferens in "making plans" and another on "making decisions" - they aren't necessarily the same thing, you know. I myself in fact prefere NOT making plans if plans isn't needed, thus making me quite passive, but whenever a task lies ahead I cannot get rest untill its taken care of - thus bringing me to the conclusion of being a 'J'. But to be honest, I often question what a "decision" is - what is it? I often get lost whenever I start thinking about such things.
 
Oscillation said:
I believe there are some inconsistencies between sites and their descriptions of each dichotomy.

One might say there are no preferens for emotions in Feeling, since both Feeling and Thinking is rational and they both have feelings, but another will still test for emotional presens in the external world, and might define Feeling as a preferens of emotions.

There's also a differens in Judging and Perception between sites, where one might say it's about how you preferens in "making plans" and another on "making decisions" - they aren't necessarily the same thing, you know. I myself in fact prefere NOT making plans if plans isn't needed, thus making me quite passive, but whenever a task lies ahead I cannot get rest untill its taken care of - thus bringing me to the conclusion of being a 'J'. But to be honest, I often question what a "decision" is - what is it? I often get lost whenever I start thinking about such things.
Click to expand...

Oh I hate it when working on something and as soon as you hit a wall someone is like lets make a decision, and I'm like fuck you man we need more information and reconnaissance rather than just hitting it blindly. Sure you maybe get things done faster but if you never improve upon the method that failed then its a null point. It is a very cowardly tactic that points to you possibly being misinformed from the start. My best advise is sabotage everything in this case and do your best to make them look dumb as mud.
 
Last edited:
More then the question of "what" I find the question of "why" interesting, and what I can see no MBTI-test ever asked about it. "Why do you often be late to meetings?" etc. They only ask "Are you?"

Why are you who you say you are? We might have our seperate reasons why we take a "Thinking"- or a "Feeling"-aproach to life, for example. A logical descision might be based on the conviction that it is the most fair for all, thus making it based on a ideal really... wich would make it a "Feeling". I'm bending the rules know, I know. I just want to think about it outside the box a little.
 
Oscillation said:
I believe there are some inconsistencies between sites and their descriptions of each dichotomy.

One might say there are no preferens for emotions in Feeling, since both Feeling and Thinking is rational and they both have feelings, but another will still test for emotional presens in the external world, and might define Feeling as a preferens of emotions.

There's also a differens in Judging and Perception between sites, where one might say it's about how you preferens in "making plans" and another on "making decisions" - they aren't necessarily the same thing, you know. I myself in fact prefere NOT making plans if plans isn't needed, thus making me quite passive, but whenever a task lies ahead I cannot get rest untill its taken care of - thus bringing me to the conclusion of being a 'J'. But to be honest, I often question what a "decision" is - what is it? I often get lost whenever I start thinking about such things.
Click to expand...

I think everyone is subject to emotions. F focuses on the "meaning" of things to us and T focuses on the "use" of things. Its an equal function I say, we just have to choose which function is most suitable to fit specific circumstance then use it effectively.

Decision is an action, from an end-result of calculated weighting of principles and consequences. The most efficient, cost-benefiting, and most preferable course to a specific circumstances.
 
Then my decision often is not making any decision, based on the feeling that I might get it wrong, and that others wishes are more important. If someone is falling behind I'll speak up though, as same as if I feel like my own self is being neglected too much. Then I will speak, and make a decision!
 
INFJ's are a pain in the ass to those types trying to control everyone because they won't blindly follow and to the followers the INFJ's are strange because they appear to not be following the programme
 
I like the way you think. Thank you for your insight.

I also agreed with lots of your opinions here. There are lots of nuances and ways one aspect of ourselves could masquerade, manipulate, or otherwise hide behind another aspect entirely.

Now I wonder what are the factors adjusting this complexity...
 
Trifoilum said:
I like the way you think. Thank you for your insight.

I also agreed with lots of your opinions here. There are lots of nuances and ways one aspect of ourselves could masquerade, manipulate, or otherwise hide behind another aspect entirely.

Now I wonder what are the factors adjusting this complexity...
Click to expand...

I only have 1 INFJ friend in my life and this is what I observed her. I would say that she's an healthy INFJ with very good EQ. "Masquerade, manipulate, or otherwise hide behind another aspect entirely." sounded a bit negative, INFJs are able to adapt really well with its surrounding, with highly developed Ni, they could get attuned with surroundings and harmonizing with the frequency wavelength in which the people were communicating at (adjusted for different scenes or people), that is why they could be perceived with 'many masks.'

My favorite part about my INFJ friend is her abilty to relate to people and borrowed other's perspective, I call it "soul-bond". She wasnt just 'stepping into my shoes' but it felt as though, literally, she knew exactly how it was to "walked" in my shoes. Once she knew where I stood on certain things, she could gave me a clearer judgements or options, without it being partially distorted by my self defenses.
 
My advice: get rid of all the stuff that is pretty much author-specific subjective bias and find the meaning behind the system. All sorts of sources say you can't have this function in that position, and just kind of assume that, without arguing it in a beyond-reasonable doubt way. They give sort of semi-plausible philosophical intuitive argumentation, without really tying the knots fully together.

Resolving these loopholes leads to getting the main concepts a lot better. The way MBTI functions are practiced today is sloppy and without proper foundation - people just apply the models without questioning why they must be true in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top