• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

MBTI Improvement Research

Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
1,786
-->
Location
Cambridge
I am interested in improving the MBTI and wish to establish a team to achieve this intention. I feel as if the MBTI's potential was limited through the Briggs' desire to simplify and organize the test for ease of application.

My wish is to form a team of people with a vast knowledge of the MBTI to perhaps manipulate the MBTI into a superior system. This would be intellectually stimulating, and if the team's goal is successful, we shall release it to the MBTI communities as an advancement of the MBTI.

Contact me via PM if you are interested in studying the MBTI and improving it with me. I would prefer people with a high knowledge of the MBTI, but I am willing to accept anyone if they will be beneficial to the team.
 

Concojones

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:50 AM
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
301
-->
Location
EU
Hi FacetiousP,

Could you give examples of shortcomings of MBTI?
Not that I doubt there are, but could you be more concrete?
 
Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
1,786
-->
Location
Cambridge
Hi FacetiousP,

Could you give examples of shortcomings of MBTI?
Not that I doubt there are, but could you be more concrete?

The research will be to pinpoint these and discuss possible improvements to remove them.
 
Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
1,787
-->
Location
where i have been put
i have been considering this a lot.....nothing yet (of real importance)
 

Reverse Transcriptase

"you're a poet whether you like it or not"
Local time
Today 1:50 AM
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
1,369
-->
Location
The Maze in the Heart of the Castle
Great idea, but I want a different leader. :-P

Infact, I feel like having two rival groups would increase productivity.

And yeah, what's your gameplan Face?
 
Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
1,786
-->
Location
Cambridge
Great idea, but I want a different leader. :-P

Infact, I feel like having two rival groups would increase productivity.

And yeah, what's your gameplan Face?

There would be no leader with my suggestion. It would be a collaboration between people with an identical goal. They would provide suppot to each other and operate as equals. However, if you are interested in leading this as a group with a command structure, you have my approval. My plan was to organize the group into a functioning one and allow us to study together as friends/associates/members.
 

Auburn

Luftschloss Schöpfer
Local time
Today 1:50 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
2,298
-->
I like the concept of this thread. :)
However, I'm going to have to be the pessimist here... ^^;

I think such a project as this could not be carried out by a group such as ours here on the forum. From what I know, there are only about one or two MBTI experts here. I see such a peoject as this only being successful if conducted by a team of experts at perhaps some college where ample resources surround them.

It's also interesting to note that such an improvement has not been already done. Could it really be because nobody else has thought of it, or could it be because there is some obstacle which they faced? I don't believe we are the first to want to improve it, which means people have falied already. This, in itself, should tell us something.
 

Yozuki

Active Member
Local time
Today 3:50 AM
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
162
-->
Location
Minnesota
Shortcomings of MBTI -
MBTI is not concrete. That it itself makes it dodgy. If ESTJs make up 50% of the population, where are all of they? Hmm? Why is it I cannot for the life of me type more than three people as ESTJ? Why do all of them type as Ns? Why do so many people have the behavior of Ns? Why does a simple self preference for wording make me an INTP? Why does my self preference differ largely from other INTPs? Does that make me an ESTP? Surely it does. Surely it doesn't because I'm picking what I've learned is different.

Error. Error. Hang. Yozuki gnashing of the teeth and the gritting of the ears. I, flabberghast.

Yes, MBTI is in need of some definite improvement. Especially when it, the creators, and the community surrounding it are not consistent in their dealings.
 

ViS

Member
Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
49
-->
Location
UK
Since when the hell did ESTJs make up 50% of the population? Are you sure you don't mean *S*Js? Also, a system like this is 100% concrete in that it covers every possible base available via attributing function preferences in degrees.

The test isn't the be-all and end-all of the MBTI.

I consider myself to have a fairly advanced understanding of the MBTI. I'll gladly hop along for the ride.
 
Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
1,786
-->
Location
Cambridge
Since when the hell did ESTJs make up 50% of the population? Are you sure you don't mean *S*Js? Also, a system like this is 100% concrete in that it covers ever possible base available via attributing function preferences in degrees.

The test isn't the be-all and end-all of the MBTI.

I consider myself to have a fairly advanced understanding of the MBTI. I'll gladly hop along for the ride.

We may not succeed, but I am confident it will benefit our minds and understanding of the MBTI. The mere prospect that we shall learn through it is appealing.

Auburn has little confidence in this project, and I am inclined to agree with his doubts, for I had very similar thoughts to the ones he described. However, I am pursuing this project through the possibility that I shall learn from it.
 

Yozuki

Active Member
Local time
Today 3:50 AM
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
162
-->
Location
Minnesota
Since when the hell did ESTJs make up 50% of the population? Are you sure you don't mean *S*Js? Also, a system like this is 100% concrete in that it covers ever possible base available via attributing function preferences in degrees.

The test isn't the be-all and end-all of the MBTI.

I consider myself to have a fairly advanced understanding of the MBTI. I'll gladly hop along for the ride.
I see claims, I don't see them being backed up, especially when you are the one countering.

You're dismissed.
 

echoplex

Happen.
Local time
Today 4:50 AM
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
1,609
-->
Location
From a dangerously safe distance
One improvement that comes to mind is a defining of subtypes. All 16 types are given function templates (Ti, Ne, Si, Fe..., for example), but the way I've interpreted it, if someone's most preferred introverted function is Thinking, and their most preferred extroverted function is iNtuition, then they are best described as basically INTP, regardless of other functions.

However, those who differ greatly in terms of tertiary functions should be given a well-defined subtype, to illustrate the differences between them and regular INTPs (this would apply for the other 15 types too, of course).

If we could define 4 subtypes for each of the 16 types (with one of those being the default function order), then we would end up with 64 unique types, which would be an improvement IMO.
 
Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
1,786
-->
Location
Cambridge
One improvement that comes to mind is a defining of subtypes. All 16 types are given function templates (Ti, Ne, Si, Fe..., for example), but the way I've interpreted it, if someone's most preferred introverted function is Thinking, and their most preferred extroverted function is iNtuition, then they are best described as basically INTP, regardless of other functions.

However, those who differ greatly in terms of tertiary functions should be given a well-defined subtype, to illustrate the differences between them and regular INTPs (this would apply for the other 15 types too, of course).

If we could define 4 subtypes for each of the 16 types (with one of those being the default function order), then we would end up with 64 unique types, which would be an improvement IMO.
I was once thinking of creating subcategories based on the subsequent processes to the initial four.
 
Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
1,786
-->
Location
Cambridge
I'm wondering how they should be named. Just imagine the field day Perseus would have coming up with 64 animal types. ugggh...or don't actually.

Species of animals do have cateogires through scientific classification. He would definitely enjoy selecting breeds of dogs.
 

Concojones

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:50 AM
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
301
-->
Location
EU
One improvement that comes to mind is a defining of subtypes.
I saw an attempt at (INTP) subtyping, but I'm not impressed because even I, a stereotypical, easy INTP case, don't fit in. Now you may argue that a better subtypology must exist, but I'd be more inclined to believe in adding more base types (to the existing 16). Small problem: there are quite a few of them (40,320 if my math is correct). Does anyone know of any attempts at this? Another, better question: how were the MBTI type descriptions made? Ideally, they'd be based on functional preferences ONLY, but that's not the case is it? Otherwise, we could all write our personal description based on our personal functional preferences.
 

Cegorach

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 2:50 AM
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
766
-->

ViS

Member
Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
49
-->
Location
UK
I see claims, I don't see them being backed up, especially when you are the one countering.

You're dismissed.

Care to do more than just ignore my statements and "dismiss" me? I told you your statistics were wrong and they obviously are. ESTJs don't make up 50% of the population; *S*Js do. That means ESFJs, ESTJs, ISFJs (bless their little hearts) and ISTJs.

Your statistics were wrong so you should re-evaluate your opinions of the system even though I believe statistics like these are not what you should be basing them on.

The MBTI Step II idea was lost on me. It just looks like a few "experts" decided to assist *S*J types with understanding what their little code means with very few advancements on the system as a whole. Also, the very idea of labelling E/I and J/P as identifiable FUNCTIONS relegates the entire concept to the corner where I keep kiddies' doodles. While the pattern is there, the differences are too big to be able to judge the *NFP and the *SFP the same way in regards to P.
 

Yozuki

Active Member
Local time
Today 3:50 AM
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
162
-->
Location
Minnesota
Care to do more than just ignore my statements and "dismiss" me? I told you your statistics were wrong and they obviously are. ESTJs don't make up 50% of the population; *S*Js do. That means ESFJs, ESTJs, ISFJs (bless their little hearts) and ISTJs.

Your statistics were wrong so you should re-evaluate your opinions of the system even though I believe statistics like these are not what you should be basing them on.

The MBTI Step II idea was lost on me. It just looks like a few "experts" decided to assist *S*J types with understanding what their little code means with very few advancements on the system as a whole. Also, the very idea of labelling E/I and J/P as identifiable FUNCTIONS relegates the entire concept to the corner where I keep kiddies' doodles. While the pattern is there, the differences are too big to be able to judge the *NFP and the *SFP the same way in regards to P.
You were dismissed for a reason, I've already stated why. You've failed to cite a credible source on your second encounter. Therefor you are imposing your opinion and this argument is over before it began.
 
Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
1,786
-->
Location
Cambridge
You were dismissed for a reason, I've already stated why. You've failed to cite a credible source on your second encounter. Therefor you are imposing your opinion and this argument is over before it began.

Logic exists too.
 

ViS

Member
Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
49
-->
Location
UK
If you're adamant on not applying your own reasoning and observations, here you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBTI#Type_dynamics_and_development

You'll find that many other MBTI-related sites will have similar statistics. It may not be accurate but it does provide a vague idea.

I'll neglect to mention the fact that you didn't provide any sources either out of courtesy. OH SHI-
 

Yozuki

Active Member
Local time
Today 3:50 AM
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
162
-->
Location
Minnesota
If you're adamant on not applying your own reasoning and observations, here you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBTI#Type_dynamics_and_development

You'll find that many other MBTI-related sites will have similar statistics. It may not be accurate but it does provide a vague idea.

I'll neglect to mention the fact that you didn't provide any sources either out of courtesy. OH SHI-
You should have provided this sooner to have avoided this incident. Also, I find any forms of imposing your opinion - stupid.

I retract what I said about ESTJs as 50% of the population.
 

ViS

Member
Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
49
-->
Location
UK
I'm imposing fact, not my opinion.
 
Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
1,786
-->
Location
Cambridge
The Sun is hot. Do I need to refer to sources?
 

ViS

Member
Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
49
-->
Location
UK
What isn't accurate? The fact that ESTJ's don't make up 50% of the population? If you're talking about the fact that the source states that it is taken from a limited survey sample, consult other sources then.

Either explain yourself or stop trying to argue for points. We're trying to make progress, not bicker like school-children.
 

Yozuki

Active Member
Local time
Today 3:50 AM
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
162
-->
Location
Minnesota
What isn't accurate? The fact that ESTJ's don't make up 50% of the population? If you're talking about the fact that the source states that it is taken from a limited survey sample, consult other sources then.

Either explain yourself or stop trying to argue for points. We're trying to make progress, not bicker like school-children.
Indeed, I would say progress is a very good idea. I merely pointed out the flaws in MBTI - I also cited reasoning why it needs improvement.

You are the one that wished to argue, not me. I am prepared to argue, it doesn't mean I want to.
 

Yozuki

Active Member
Local time
Today 3:50 AM
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
162
-->
Location
Minnesota
Indeed, I would say progress is a very good idea. I merely pointed out the flaws in MBTI - I also cited reasoning why it needs improvement.

You are the one that wished to argue, not me. I am prepared to argue, it doesn't mean I want to.

Facetious - my post didn't go through. Look up Logical Fallacies. For that reason I won't readily trust logic.
 
Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
1,786
-->
Location
Cambridge
Indeed, I would say progress is a very good idea. I merely pointed out the flaws in MBTI - I also cited reasoning why it needs improvement.

You are the one that wished to argue, not me. I am prepared to argue, it doesn't mean I want to.

Facetious - my post didn't go through. Look up Logical Fallacies. For that reason I won't readily trust logic.

[sarcasm]I think that expecting concrete, solid facts from every psychology field is a fallacy. There is mostly speculation with probability.[/sarcasm]
 

Yozuki

Active Member
Local time
Today 3:50 AM
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
162
-->
Location
Minnesota
[sarcasm]I think that expecting concrete, solid facts from every psychology field is a fallacy. There is mostly speculation with probability.[/sarcasm]
Sounds like there is room for improvement then. Your sarcasm is also noted and ignored.
 

Gorgrim

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:50 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
256
-->
Location
Denmark
Yozuki, is that Mcgyver, out of curiosity. oh yeh, its been measured a million times...

measure stress in different set situations. Aswell as The ability to concentrate, and your bodily attraction, health,(gene defects). would be a good start.

then test memorizing objects in pictures, then sentences from letters, then numbers, control they don't have special training first.....

that's visual memory, then auditory memory testing next etc.

This will create dozens of data, that can be measured to create an idea of a human organism. And suddenly there's not 4 functions, there's 15, and it creates alot more variables that interact with eachother, but more detailed information about a person...

u can always figure out ways to get more data on a person and deduce what they are like, and u can find alot of ways to do it.... but at one point, people also learn more about themselves than a test can, and beyond general type discriptions, it might be unfair to go into details, that could be very specific situations, that are suppressed, with increasingly bigger risk of beeing wrong the more specific you become....a human has to define his own experiences aswell... ;<
 

loveofreason

echoes through time
Local time
Yesterday 9:50 PM
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
5,492
-->
Stop sniping at each other you two... or take it to the Arena. Back to the topic!!!
 

chocolate

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 1:50 AM
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
545
-->
So back to the topic. I don't have time for a research project, but I support it. I don't feel that I fit into any types perfectly, although every time I try to throw away the entire concept of MBTI, I cannot do it.

Here's a question for your research that I have often wondered about: (I believe cheese asked this somewhere):

Why do you have to have your first function your extraverted (introverted) one if you are an extravert (introvert). For instance, why can't an INTP have Ne first? I suspect at least one INTP I know of this. And I suspect myself as possibly having Ti first.

Also if you are an extravert (introvert), you presumably spend more time in the outer (inner) world, and this would include both extraverted and introverted functions. So an INTP will sit and think about all the ideas s/he gets from observing the outside world, and an ENTP will seek people to talk about abstract ideas with. I find that interesting to think about, as it seems to me you can introvert/extravert functions that are extraverted/introverted. It seems therefore that there is a difference of meaning to those words depending on the context (verb or adjective).
 
Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
1,786
-->
Location
Cambridge
Why do you have to have your first function your extraverted (introverted) one if you are an extravert (introvert). For instance, why can't an INTP have Ne first? I suspect at least one INTP I know of this. And I suspect myself as possibly having Ti first.

I think this was decided after they chose the introverted or extroverted preference as a crucial element of the type's functioning. The I or E essentially define whether they focus on their internal world (I) or external world (E).

The dominant process has to correspond with the I or E because it's which data they are specficially targeting. If you have an ENTP, their dominant process has to be an extroverted one, for their main focus is the external world. It would be odd for an individual of the extroverted preference to have a dominant function which revolves around their internal world (I).

I am unsure how to articulate this and I am not confident that I've interpreted you correctly. Maybe I should sleep on it (very tired).
 

ViS

Member
Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
49
-->
Location
UK
If you're an "INTP" with Ne as your dominant, you're an ENTP.

=/

I can not stress enough the fact that archetypal type profiles and the type code isn't the be-all and end-all of the MBTI. An in-depth understanding of the seperate functions is required to actually utilise the MBTI fully.
 

Ermine

is watching and taking notes
Local time
Today 1:50 AM
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
2,871
-->
Location
casually playing guitar in my mental arena
^ On that note, I think there should be an MBTI type for each combination of the 8 functions for 64 types. For example, I'm somewhat at odds with the INTP description in that my Ne is tied, maybe even stronger than my Ti, but I'm certainly not an ENTP because I'm so reserved and the rest of the ENTP function order doesn't coincide with my personality.

Also, there are functions in between my secondary and tertiary, Ni and Fi, that are strong and significant and set me apart, though the INTP function order is correct for me.
 

ViS

Member
Local time
Today 8:50 AM
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
49
-->
Location
UK
It's impossible to come up with an archetype for every position of the scale (considering the fact that there are infinite degrees) but it's possible to come damned close to it.
 

Ghost1986

Active Member
Local time
Today 1:50 PM
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
292
-->
Location
The United States.
does anyone here have a degree in psychology? neurology? or any sort of medical or social science degree?

i think those would be important for you to know. i just started my political science degree and may switch to criminal justice so i cant help.
 

cheese

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 7:50 PM
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
3,194
-->
Location
internet/pubs
ViS:
I don't think it's that simple. I thought so before as well, but there are some tests that actually decide on your type based on the overall strength of the I/E traits, rather than the attitude of the dominant.
Eg You could be ENTP with
1. Ti
2. Ne
3. Fe
4. Se

Fe is still the tertiary, and there are enough E functions to outweigh the dominant I ones.

The system is probably not perfect yet.

I do agree though that naming a type for every single variant is ridiculous. Types are necessarily generalisations - many will not fit 'perfectly' into one. However, either the categories are too broad, and encompass too many different people, or there are some truly unusual people who deviate significantly from the list of traits in X but fit even less in other types and therefore fall by default into a slightly less uncomfortable box. Technically, according to the principle of typing they are type X, but the purpose of personality typing is not served in that the specific traits, behaviours and problems/solutions associated with X do not give them any useful information about themselves, or only marginally more so than other type descriptions. A closer look at the system would therefore be useful.


Generally:
The stereotypical type is dependent on the functions being in the prescribed order - for INTP this would be Ti, Ne, Si, Fe. The interplay of these functions results in the archetypal INTP. The strength of preference for each function can be varied, giving rise to subtle differences in behaviour etc. However, the order of the functions may be slightly different while still close enough to the archetype (and far away enough from others) to merit the label; the order may also be tweaked to such an extent that no type fits suitably. This could be due to unusual function development or a flaw in the system. It would be interesting to work out which.
 

chocolate

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 1:50 AM
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
545
-->
^ On that note, I think there should be an MBTI type for each combination of the 8 functions for 64 types. For example, I'm somewhat at odds with the INTP description in that my Ne is tied, maybe even stronger than my Ti, but I'm certainly not an ENTP because I'm so reserved and the rest of the ENTP function order doesn't coincide with my personality.

We must be duals of each other. I identify so strongly with Ti (and even when I was a little kid, I was always attracted to logic), but I know I am not an INTP. I don't identify with everything in the ENTP description (I don't have an entrepreneurial bent, and I'm not as socially adept as I should be), but it is the best fit of any of the types.
 

zephryi

Active Member
Local time
Today 4:50 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
103
-->
I think that perhaps the issue is that most people are probably taking the free online tests rather than the actual test- which I think they can be a good guidepost, and most people don't want to pay around 70-100 and something dollars understandably. But the thing is that I'm rather certain that the questions may be modeled sort of on the actual test, but most likely lean towards the typical, stereotypical view that, say, "All extroverted types must be loud!" or "All introverts hate parties!" which skews the actual definitions and recreate the definition based on tendencies.

Now, I have two friends who are ENFP that I have a very close relationship with. One of them is rather typical, I think, for an ENFP- he's loud, gregarious, is hurt if he feels you don't respect him and give him enough attention, but isn't really touchy-feely. His Ne with Fi allows him to fit in easily, socially. I don't get along with him as well, though, because his extroversion is very pronounced, and he doesn't understand why I instinctively reject social outings. However, my other friend, although still extroverted, is not quite as gregarious, and actually would prefer to sit quietly during a party and watch people's interactions to allow intuition free reign. However, we still define her as extroverted because her attention is very much directed towards other people and outside things.

The actual differences aren't surprising; we can see differences right on this forum. But, if you use the MBTI Step Two idea of facets of preferences- especially since it takes into account the the strength of the preference- you can more easily pinpoint these differences without having to question the entire type given, as it separates the tendencies from the actual definition of the preference. (And as an aside, someone criticized the test for making the E/I and J/P functions- they are actually said to be "preferences" in most explanations of Step II; "function" is still assigned to the actual Ti, Ne, etc.)

So, looking at the example I gave, the E/I facets are:

initiating/receiving
expressive/contained
gregarious/intimate
active/reflective
enthusiastic/quiet

In both cases, my friends are initiating, expressive, and enthusiastic, all in preferences tendencies. However, both lean towards a more intimate conversation style- they both speak more readily in small groups or one on one, while my second friend is probably reflective over active. However, these are simply variations- they are both highly focused on the outside world and need stimulation through social interaction, which is the actual "definition," if you will, of extroversion.

So with the sample that cheese gave: ENTP with Ti, Ne, Fe, and Se,

It could simply be that the ENTP is actually an INTP, but happens to be gregarious, or at least gregariously leaning- or lean OOP on any of the facets; the theory says that you can have up to 4 OOP facets without a preference change.

Also, another thing, I've run across the idea several times that various functions tend to strengthen as you grow older- your first function develops first, obviously, then the second around puberty/early twenties, I want to say, third around 30s, 40s, then after that the fourth function starts to develop. While your first two functions are always the strongest, it's possible, depending on development, that the second function can be rather strong, I think.

Anyways, I'm not arguing against a closer look at the MBTI- I think if nothing else, it'll be very enlightening, and of course, any improvements to make it even more accurate are great- but I think it'd help if we had some more MBTI experts to guide any improvement projects so problems can be zeroed in on, instead of trying to find problems that may already be solved in a different form.
 

chocolate

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 1:50 AM
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
545
-->
So, looking at the example I gave, the E/I facets are:

initiating/receiving
expressive/contained
gregarious/intimate
active/reflective
enthusiastic/quiet (depends on mood)

Hmmm.
 

chocolate

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 1:50 AM
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
545
-->
First of all, apologies for the double post.

I think this was decided after they chose the introverted or extroverted preference as a crucial element of the type's functioning. The I or E essentially define whether they focus on their internal world (I) or external world (E).

The dominant process has to correspond with the I or E because it's which data they are specficially targeting. If you have an ENTP, their dominant process has to be an extroverted one, for their main focus is the external world. It would be odd for an individual of the extroverted preference to have a dominant function which revolves around their internal world (I).

I am unsure how to articulate this and I am not confident that I've interpreted you correctly. Maybe I should sleep on it (very tired).


This does seem to be a paradox doesn't it? (to having an oppositely oriented dominant function (where I define oppositely oriented to be Xi if you are E and Xe if you are I, where X=T,F,S or N)).

But maybe the resolution has to do with the answer to this question: What does dominant mean? Some possiblilities:

function with which you spend most of your time?
function into which you invest most of your (intellectual) resources?
function which comes most naturally to you?
function which is your strongest?
function which you prefer the most?
function which most defines you in the eyes of others? in the eyes of yourself?
Some combination of the above? (most likely?)

Some of these would be at odds with having an oppositely oriented function and some perhaps not...?
 

Jennywocky

Tacky Flamingo
Local time
Today 4:50 AM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
-->
Location
Charn
The actual differences aren't surprising; we can see differences right on this forum. But, if you use the MBTI Step Two idea of facets of preferences- especially since it takes into account the the strength of the preference- you can more easily pinpoint these differences without having to question the entire type given, as it separates the tendencies from the actual definition of the preference.

Yup, thank you for bringing this up... step Two was the "official" expansion to original MBTI theory and tries to compensate for the most overt deficiencies.

No need to recreate the wheel.

Unfortunately, MBTI seems to be best when applied, not as an isolated detached (and thus entirely predictive) theory. People are too complicated. We do better by getting a "basic type" if possible, then looking at someone's specific pattern (and how it differs from base theory), then using knowledge of how functions work to see possibly what a "best fit" is for how particular function use developed for that person, then project based on that what areas of improvement and growth could be.
 
Top Bottom