Type Grouping

  • Thread starter Thread starter VH
  • Start date Start date
Hmm can you give some examples. I have no idea what you mean.
 
This is actually really interesting to me, Von. I've run into this a bit with my mother, who is ESTP. I realized we would come up with the same answer but in different ways (using different cognitive processes) but we'd always argue up until we each completed the first four processes in our own mind.

Mom's processes: SeTiFeNi
Mine: NiFeTiSe.

Until I got to the Sensory data (or until she got to the big picture) we'd be saying the same thing...but in circles. Funny how I *just* got that the past few weeks.
 
Why aren't all the types grouped by their first extraverted function like the SPs are? This would be useful in typing others as their highest extraverted function should be the most obvious to others. So the groups would be:

TJs- The Builders
(Te the most obvious function)
Focus on order, efficiency, productivity, structure

ENTJ
ESTJ
INTJ
ISTJ

FJs- The Nurturers
(Fe the most obvious function)
Focus on society, sharing, caring and harmony

ESFJ
ENFJ
INFJ
ISFJ

NPs- The Interpreters
(Ne the most obvious function)
Focus on meaning, possibilities, change, emergence

ENTP
ENFP
INTP
INFP

SPs- The Adapters
(Se the most obvious function)
Focus on experience, action, awareness, exploration

ESTP
ESFP
ISTP
ISFP

Something like that.
 
Yeah I've been moving types into all sorts of categories at one point, greatly inspired by socionics.

The one at the very top of this thread is one I consider most meaningful in terms of my private oppinions of people/types:

I've noticed patterns like, everyone in group 4 seems to me to be incredibly sexy and easy-going, though distant.
Everyone in group 1 is booooring when I'm bored but reassuring when I'm stressed.
Group two is very comfortable to be surrounded by for extended periods of time if they're in a good mood; and kind-of boring when they're throwing an emo fit.
Group three - well I almost instinctively suck up to their ego as they're a little scary - perceived as threat more than anything.

The second grouping, by extraverted function, seems more fitting for an office environment etc - which makes sense as it focuses on extraversion.

A grouping based on introverted function:

INFP - ISFP - ENFP - ESFP for me - that is a group I would use in something like the military, a place where emotional intimacy/one-waveness/basically inner personal drive must merge with other members in order for the system to work. I sort-of wonder if it would lead to disaster if types were isolated like this (and general psychological unhealthyness) but it would certainly create some major fire before going out due to the constantly-self-confirming groupthink scenario. It would magnify each person to create one super-function - so you should have a super-Fi group, and maybe another Super-Ti group, Super-NI and Super-Si - conflict within would be minimal but conflict with the outside world would be impossible to avoid.

Or maybe I'm just going crazy with this theory :P
 
Von Hase said:
The only difference is the order, making these types extremely compatible despite what seems to be a great deal of difference.
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of the compatability. I think it ultimately depends on the individual. With an ESTJ I think we could learn a lot from each other and we would have patience with each others dark sides. However we first need to have patience for each other's natural side, which takes a certain degree of patience and maturity, or a little bit of craziness. :wacko: :) I do get along with ISTJs fairly well though. I'm curious to hear more of your observations in how different orderings of the same functions plays a role in compatability.
 
I think the biggest breakthrough of understanding we might have with each person in our particular groupings is that we all use the same processes, regardless of the order. What frustrates us is when the processes are (for us) out of order. Sometimes it's most frustrating because we're both saying the same thing but we've achieved the answer a different way. Or it's that one reached the conclusion faster using their processes. Or, it could even be that we're adamant about using one process (or we're better at our top process) and less patient with our weaker processes (the processes which might be another person's strength).

But imagine if we could take a time out break while we're arguing with someone. This might be a difficult exercise (and it can take concentration), but if you share the top processes with someone and you're in an argument with them, you might want to take a quick breath and try another way to communicate with them. It is tough, though - I'm not gonna lie. But if you try to speak their "language" and change your perspective (by understanding what their communication needs are), you'll gain a new perspective about them. To a point, anyway. You might still disagree with them but at least you'll know how they got to their conclusion.
 
arbygil said:
I think the biggest breakthrough of understanding we might have with each person in our particular groupings is that we all use the same processes, regardless of the order. What frustrates us is when the processes are (for us) out of order. Sometimes it's most frustrating because we're both saying the same thing but we've achieved the answer a different way. Or it's that one reached the conclusion faster using their processes. Or, it could even be that we're adamant about using one process (or we're better at our top process) and less patient with our weaker processes (the processes which might be another person's strength).

But imagine if we could take a time out break while we're arguing with someone. This might be a difficult exercise (and it can take concentration), but if you share the top processes with someone and you're in an argument with them, you might want to take a quick breath and try another way to communicate with them. It is tough, though - I'm not gonna lie. But if you try to speak their "language" and change your perspective (by understanding what their communication needs are), you'll gain a new perspective about them. To a point, anyway. You might still disagree with them but at least you'll know how they got to their conclusion.
Click to expand...

Yes!

Reading this just made me realize the point to the groupings I made. Thanks!

The others in your group will help you grow your lesser functions. When your lesser functions are under developed, these types will seem antagonistic. But, as you learn from them, you'll both develop your lesser functions and move toward the goal of all of this ... which is to be a fully developed cognitive mind, not just a pair of well honed functions. All of the great minds in the world, and all of the people who are successful in life and stay that way, have well developed functions across the board. The better developed all of your functions are, the more complete your mind is. These groups are the ones who will help each other develop the most because of their natural affinities.

Ni strikes yet again! :m027:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top