MBTI third option theory

[VH]

Random side note...

Carl Jung never really intended for there to be assumed functions in type other than the primary judging and perceiving functions.

It's been suggested, both by Jung and the people over at Socionics that there very well might be a lot of variance on cognitive function preferences within any given type. I think this might be more likely the source of confusion than anything.

For example, an INFJ could be Ni > Fe > Ti > Se (as per conventional assumption), but also Ni > Fe > Si > Te, or several other possible patterns...
Ni > Fe > Fi > Ne
Ni > Fe > Fi > Se
Ni > Fe > Ti > Ne
Ni > Fe > Si > Ne

In other words, this means each type could have several variations, and this is likely the cause of all the discrepancies.

 

[magister343]

I guess my sister would be an ISCJ. It was rather hard to type her, since it was hard to decide if she was a thinker or feeler and i could not detect either introverted judging function. When I had her take the cognitive functions test it said she was probably an ISFJ, but she is closer to the older theoretical pattern of Si>Fe>Te>Ne. She had extremely strong Si, strong (almost tied) Fe and Te, ok Ne and Fi, and almost no Se or Ti whatsoever.

I don't like being a Ti dominant living in a household where the next best Ti is a 6th function.

 

[slant]

I honestly do not believe that this would improve the accuracy of the false test.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Random side note...

Carl Jung never really intended for there to be assumed functions in type other than the primary judging and perceiving functions.

It's been suggested, both by Jung and the people over at Socionics that there very well might be a lot of variance on cognitive function preferences within any given type. I think this might be more likely the source of confusion than anything.

For example, an INFJ could be Ni > Fe > Ti > Se (as per conventional assumption), but also Ni > Fe > Si > Te, or several other possible patterns...
Ni > Fe > Fi > Ne
Ni > Fe > Fi > Se
Ni > Fe > Ti > Ne
Ni > Fe > Si > Ne

In other words, this means each type could have several variations, and this is likely the cause of all the discrepancies.

Stop hurting my braaaaaain and kicking my boxessssss! *grumble* I have to sit on this for a while, but I really don't like this. I could see Ni>Fe>Si>Te, but that is it.

 

[KazeCraven]

Random side note...

Carl Jung never really intended for there to be assumed functions in type other than the primary judging and perceiving functions.

It's been suggested, both by Jung and the people over at Socionics that there very well might be a lot of variance on cognitive function preferences within any given type. I think this might be more likely the source of confusion than anything.

For example, an INFJ could be Ni > Fe > Ti > Se (as per conventional assumption), but also Ni > Fe > Si > Te, or several other possible patterns...
Ni > Fe > Fi > Ne
Ni > Fe > Fi > Se
Ni > Fe > Ti > Ne
Ni > Fe > Si > Ne

In other words, this means each type could have several variations, and this is likely the cause of all the discrepancies.

Apparently he also thought that the top two functions could both point in the same direction, which he called (or, at least, was subsequently called) a pure Jungian type. Reportedly he considered himself to be Ni & Ti:

A person who had introverted thinking and introverted intuition as his first two functions (with the former as dominant at some points in his career, and the latter dominant at other times), Jung was one 'pure' or 'extreme' type who not only lived 'effectively', but also made an extremely significant contribution

from http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/jthirdprinc.html

I'm not really a fan of Jung's writing style, so I haven't actually read where he states that, if at all (i.e. whether this source is false).

 

[VH]

I could see Ni>Fe>Si>Te, but that is it.

Of course you do, because that's your set, if this theory holds.

Apparently he also thought that the top two functions could both point in the same direction, which he called (or, at least, was subsequently called) a pure Jungian type. Reportedly he considered himself to be Ni & Ti:

Interesting. I'd heard that before, and seen INFJs go pretty strongly Ni and Ti when they get in their introverted mode.

I'm not really a fan of Jung's writing style, so I haven't actually read where he states that, if at all (i.e. whether this source is false).

Yeah, he's a very 'German' speaker. Doesn't translate in a way that English likes to flow.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

What if the MBTI types were given a third option for each axis that is slight to mild?

Introvert, Extrovert, Ambivert.
iNtuitive, Sensing, Biperceptual.
Feeling, Thinking, Conscientious.
Judging, Perceiving, Discerning.

And therefore, a fully balanced person would be an ABCD.

I would be an ANFJ because I'm very close on my I an E axis.

My INTJ friend who has a very strong F function would be an INCJ.

It would be a better description than the usual x, but would open up the scale to a ridiculous amount of more types (81 to be exact).

This makes little sense:
You have to understand that each axis is a continuous scale where there are theoretically infinite possibilities. These new mid-point labels you've come up with are only points in the scale, just ONE possibility (for each axis). New types derived from this system would be infinitesimally narrow, thus accounting for exactly 0 people in the universe.

 

[VH]

This makes little sense:
You have to understand that each axis is a continuous scale where there are theoretically infinite possibilities. These new mid-point labels you've come up with are only points in the scale, just ONE possibility (for each axis). New types derived from this system would be infinitesimally narrow, thus accounting for exactly 0 people in the universe.

Actually, your agrument supports my theory. You're arguing that there is too much diversity on the scale to pinpoint. This theory furthers that statement by making the presumption that axis preferences cannot be binary.

The MBTI uses terms to describe the percentages of preference - slight, moderate, strong. What I'm suggesting is assigning an ambiguity to preferences that are 'slight' (roughly within 12.5% of the perfect median to allow for a 25% preference range in the middle of an axis), since they are inherently ambiguous scores, and allowing for such to be displyed.

You're using X's to represent undecided axis preferences, which does not follow the standard format. My proposal is also outside the standard format, but allows people who have decided that their preferences are more balanced than not to display as such.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

Actually, your agrument supports my theory. You're arguing that there is too much diversity on the scale to pinpoint.

I am not saying that there is too much diversity. MBTI works perfectly fine for what it is/does. It definitely isn't made to "pin-point" a personality. Your argument is similar to: "Why have names for a limited set of colors such as blue, yellow, red, green, etc. if there are actually infinite colors?"

This theory furthers that statement by making the presumption that axis preferences cannot be binary.

Its binary nature is a means to provide conclusion. For example: If you're more so in a certain direction on axis y, this concludes ___. Logic at its purest yields one of two values: true or false. This is the very nature of dividing an axis in two.

The MBTI uses terms to describe the percentages of preference - slight, moderate, strong. What I'm suggesting is assigning an ambiguity to preferences that are 'slight' (roughly within 12.5% of the perfect median to allow for a 25% preference range in the middle of an axis), since they are inherently ambiguous scores, and allowing for such to be displyed.

This is no different from proposing "new" colors (names for colors that aren't "primary"). Primary colors are quite capable of providing any imaginable color. This is the main point.

You're using X's to represent undecided axis preferences, which does not follow the standard format. My proposal is also outside the standard format, but allows people who have decided that their preferences are more balanced than not to display as such.

Having an ambiguous preference does not allow you to make, for example, two decisions at once (in the case of T/F). My point is, you're one type at any given point despite having an ambiguous preference. An ambiguous preference will at most, determine how likely you are to behave in a certain way.

 

[jdftx]

IN(C/B)J here