Why are there 16 types? | INFJ Forum

Why are there 16 types?

Quiet

Quiet

i know nothing
Dec 16, 2011
2,028
2,703
892
aus
MBTI
infj
Enneagram
1w9
Sorry-edit= Why are there 16 types
Note- this question in based on the assumption that you think that there are 16 different types or energies

Why is there 16 types? How do the 16 different types fit into your worldview? Do you see them as 16 different types of energies? Do you think that functions are biological in nature- brain anatomy and physiology, chemistry etc.
 
Last edited:
I hope you don't mind me saying that it's "are" not "is".

I presume you're referring to MBTI? I wouldn't say it is an assumption as much as it is a theory.
 
That is simply how the model is defined. Four variables with two choices makes for sixteen different combinations. It is a simplified version of reality because actually everyone has preferences as a matter of degree and not as a matter of either this or that. Also, some people have even proposed adding letters to MBTI for a middle ground. The only one I can remember at the moment is ambivert.

I don't see them as energies really. Some of them deal with energy, but they themselves aren't energy. Particularly Introversion/Extroversion deal with whether one is energized by being alone or with others in MBTI.

Yes I think they are partially biological, but that is because I think personality is partially biological.
 
Asarya said:
Note- this question in based on the assumption that you think that there are 16 different types or energies

Why is there 16 types? How do the 16 different types fit into your worldview? Do you see them as 16 different types of energies? Do you think that functions are biological in nature- brain anatomy and physiology, chemistry etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you can look at them as energies on some level. If you can recognise the different types in people's attitudes, actions, thoughts, or behaviors, then there must be something in someone's energy to reflect this. I am not sure all the functions are biological. As someone says, introversion and extroversion are considered biological but the others are, in my opinion, somewhat more cultural or socio-psychological categories. Although many disagree, I think whether we appear more F or T, is often dependent on how we were raised or socialised earlier on. I think it's difficult to know someone's true personality because we're shaped by so much internal and external forces. Someone can feel as if a function is natural but it may simply be that that particular function was used and developed more than the function which is supposed to be their natural preference. If you're taught to value Fe growing up, you find yourself defaulting to Fe in your interactions as your dominant mode, when your natural preference is Fi. So, that nature vs. nurture thing definitely comes into play.
 
It's because it's based on Jungs cognitive functions, I believe there is actually 42 (and 32,000 permutations if you don't rule anything out (or duplicate things)) ways it could potentially work but people have settled on 16.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
From my amateurish exploration of mbti and socionics (i find socionics intriguing but I dont really think it is accurate) and my personal experience I have been able to identify 16 different archetypal energies. People are ofcourse individuals and vary tremendously within type and between types. So, entertaining the theory of 16 different types of energies I have to wonder why this is the case. It seems that each type is able to experience the world in such a different and wonderful way, and each type has so much to teach all the other types. It also seems that society as we know it needs all 16 types to be balanced and functional. I know that one's type can be heavily influenced by culture and environment but there seems to be a fairly similar distribution of types across cultures (I will find the reference from which I read that). It seems that each type has particular strengths and weakness that ideally enable it to fulfill certain roles in society.
I wonder if to truly experience life fully one has to experience or live as each of the 16 different types, maybe in a reincarnational sense. Anyway sorry for my rambling- I'm just pondering. I have been thinking about this for a while and I'm just wondering what others think. I understand that mbti is just a theory but I feel that there is something in it. I approach mbti from a cognitive functions approach rather than an 1 versus e, t versus f approach. The dichotomies seem fairly fluid in nature but there function order seems more important to me when identifying different archetypes
 
It's the consequence of attempting to apply logic to explain a precluded answer.
 
I hate the word energy when used in context with people. Smoke a blunt around the maypole already, why don'tcha.

On that note, there are 16 types because that is the smallest number you can achieve without seriously limiting a view of a person's type. Also, these are the types that are the most concretely based. I really don't believe in things such as ambiverts, I believe everyone is something, they may not know it, but you can't be an ambivert. Why not you ask? Because you have to focus your energy externally, or internally, to do both would scatter it too greatly.


On that note, fuck it, I said energy.
 
At the risks of sounding totally nuts and unhinged, I'm going to share some weird experiences that Ive had lately. Its hard to explain these experiences because I dont really undertand it and its hard to put such strange 'feelings' into words.

Over a month ago I was hanging out with my INTP friend and we were having a deep and meaningful. I was looking at his face, listening intently to what he was saying, when I felt like I could see 'another face' morph over his. It was like his facial features metaphorically morphed into a more 'generic face'. All these other faces of people that I know popped into my head as I was staring at him, people I thought of as INTP. I felt that all these faces had a similar 'quality' to them They do no look alike, or related, but there was a deeper quality present in all of them that is hard to explain. I snapped out of it quickly and tried to stop tripping out and concentrate on what he was saying, but each time I looked at him I could still imagine the 'generic' face.

This happened again with different types, when I have interacted with an ESTJ, ENTP, ISTP, ENFP and ISFP. On occasion when I see someone new, I can imagine their face morphing into the 'generic face'. Most of the time I dont even think about it though, or forget to think about it and just concentrate on interacting with the person. I'm pretty bad at reading faces from photos but I think it would be fun to experiment a little more with it

I imagine that these generic faces may be 'archetypal faces', or maybe Im just nuts. I havent discounted that completely. There is also a chance I'm simply reading too much into this, and I'm wary or creating self fullfilling prophesies when dealing with people. I certainly dont want to pre-judge anyone or lie to myself.

I had a look at the VI stuff in socionics. Some of the stuff seemed compelling but overall I think that its pretty flawed. I had a look at all the famous type photos trying to see the connection in the faces and for a lot of them I couldnt. I did find the body language information interesting, and could relate some of it to myself and people I know. But a lost of it was hit and miss. I definately think that socionics has its cognitive function orders screwed up. I'm supposedly an INFJ in socionics as well and I do not relate to the FiNe function order, although I do realise that scoionics has different understandings and descriptions of all the indiviudal functions, and that my understanding could be flawed or misguided. Some of the relationship dynamics stuff is very interesting as well.

Socionics asserts that inner processes manifest themselves through outer boundaries. Heres a link to the section on VI on the site
http://www.socionics.com/advan/vi/vi.htm

Im finding this all very confusing and interesting. I dont know if VI is possible or even real. And if it is true, why is it so, and what are the implications? Where do these archetypes come from?

Has anyone else experienced anything like this?
 
I have experienced similar things, though in my experience it has had less to do with revealing archetypes as it has been revealing how personality manifests in spite of and through the myriad ways in which bodies are constructed. it's like reconstructing essence after it is augmented through a medium, essence being personality, and medium being the mire material parts of our body and face. i don't have many non-INT/INF friends though, so I am sure this limits my perception a good bit.

The four spectrums of the MBTI/Kiersey Temperament test align pretty well with what I have read of the neuroscience book Master and the Emissary, which attempts to produce a less misconstrued depiction of the different modes of functions between the two halves of the brain, opposed to the common belief that they do completely different tasks. MBTI is highly complimentary to the bilateralism that it describes, as the right half of the brain is more concerned with relational interconnectivity, subjectivity, the implicit and the materially present, while the left preferences the logical, the systemic, object manipulation and working from abstract models. this is a really crude summary, so i'd recommend reading the book and seeing where it takes you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back