Still Using Dichotomies?

[INTrPosr]

Really? I have not been on the forum for years, but I find it interesting that someone has not realized the obsolete-ness of referring to type by MBTI codes when attempting to discuss how that code works. Surely by now we have grown beyond referring to a type as X, and should use cognitive functions.

[kali]

Damn sensors.

[INTrPosr]

Damn sensors.Lol, that is what I mean. If you actually used cognitive functions instead of rudimentary four-letter codes with no means of being put into action, you would realize that ISPs and ESJs are no more sensing types than INPs and ENJs are intuiting types. ISTPs dominate with the same cognitive function as INTPs. Do you think the paring of ISTP/INTP, ISFP/INFP, ESTJ/ENTJ and ESFJ/ENFJ is random? They dominate with the same cognitive function Ti, Fi, Te and Fe respectively.

Looking at the type you claim makes absolutely no sense. Why use a generic "X" when you are simply saying you are not sure whether you dominate with Fi or Ti? That should be quite apparent since they are completely opposite in use and are one another with the user having almost no means of using one, if they dominate with the other. Even if you do not prefer to understand cognitive functions, you should know whether you prefer NF to NT as your core value.

[MacGuffin]

Lol, that is what I mean. If you actually used cognitive functions instead of rudimentary four-letter codes with no means of being put into action, you would realize that ISPs and ESJs are no more sensing types than INPs and ENJs are intuiting types. ISTPs dominate with the same cognitive function as INTPs. Do you think the paring of ISTP/INTP, ISFP/INFP, ESTJ/ENTJ and ESFJ/ENFJ is random? They dominate with the same cognitive function Ti, Fi, Te and Fe respectively.

Looking at the type you claim makes absolutely no sense. Why use a generic "X" when you are simply saying you are not sure whether you dominate with Fi or Ti? That should be quite apparent since they are completely opposite in use and are one another with the user having almost no means of using one, if they dominate with the other. Even if you do not prefer to understand cognitive functions, you should know whether you prefer NF to NT as your core value.

Yeah, all that is why I don't believe in function theory.

[god and friends]

Yeah, all that is why I don't believe in function theory.

Yup, INtP and INfP are much more similar than INtP and InTP.

[Deckard]

Lol, that is what I mean. If you actually used cognitive functions instead of rudimentary four-letter codes with no means of being put into action, you would realize that ISPs and ESJs are no more sensing types than INPs and ENJs are intuiting types. ISTPs dominate with the same cognitive function as INTPs. Do you think the paring of ISTP/INTP, ISFP/INFP, ESTJ/ENTJ and ESFJ/ENFJ is random? They dominate with the same cognitive function Ti, Fi, Te and Fe respectively.
If we're comparing INTP to ISTP, the S/N distinction is useful and descriptive, as is the distinction between Ne and Ni, Se and Si. Comparing the archetype descriptions is similarly useful.

The different approaches are incompatible in some ways. The tests that assign percentages to each letter can result in borderline cases, where we assign an "x", and there's no real analogue for this in cognitive function theory. It's no less valid than any other approach, if personality is indeed a spectrum. Is it difficult to imagine that someone might have neither Ti or Fi dominating, and instead have a balance between the two?

[Polemarch]

Lol, that is what I mean.

Lol, you got trolled sensor.

[manza]

The sixteen types are useful tools for grouping people. Clearly, they are not perfect, but if you view the "dichotomies" as being strict dichotomies, then you are doing it wrong. It's a spectrum and I always figured everyone saw it as such.

Besides, even just listing your top two cognitive functions would result in 56 possible combinations. Sure, that would make each of us feel like more of a unique snowflake (maybe), but it would also reduce the utility of the whole typing thing in terms of providing a way to draw generalizations, as well as making this whole deal way less inviting to newcomers.

Best to stick with the "dichotomies" and look deeper into the theory later, if you care to. I suspect that's what many of us did. Not everyone wants to go that deep into the rabbit hole, and the sixteen types provide plenty to work with.

[Anonymous]

The OP is right though, it is an obsolete theory, at least scientifically. Apart from extroversion/introversy (which is a scale, in the middle of which is ambiversion), the measures don't perform very well against statistical analysis. As useful as it seems to be, so did the polygraph, but when applied practically rather than just for fun, it's more dangerous than anything (think workplace screening - you don't want a meaningless measure for that).

There are more theories of personality out there, but I haven't heard of any way to give anyone a very comprehensive profile through self-report measures (answering a bunch of questions on your own). You can determine how well a person works with others, or how charismatic a person is, maybe even how good of a leader they make in certain contexts, but trying to judge the person as a whole is a gigantic task. I wouldn't go so far to say that it's impossible, just that it's not possible scientifically, yet.

But then again, I'm a Gemini, so what do I know.

[Rhu]

I have found that the key to existing as a false positive is to have those around you cling to your facade as the only surface that could serve as the foundation for their insane world view. They have to make sure your existence remains comfortably static. If you let that facade disappear, even for a second, you could have literally two, maybe three people tumbling through the endless void, watching with slumped shoulders their personal thought constructs disintegrate in the tidal forces of existential crises.

[INTrPosr]

Lol, you got trolled sensor.Even more absurdity, ISTPs are thinking types. Have you actually ever read even the MBTI theory? Sensing types dominate with sensing.

[bass_n_treble]

I just prefer to think of it as an arbitrary black-and-white categorization of an amorphous blob of people in this world. Do you really think anyone can perfectly categorize 7 billion people?

All I know is I have some stuff in common with people here. That's all I care about, I don't claim to be an MBTI expert, nor do I care whether or not anyone values it.

[Skinart]

Every shade of gray can be boiled down to a set of dichotomous queries by isolating atomistic parts of the initial question. There are two kinds of dichotomies: dichotomies that work very well, and dichotomies that don't work as well. Distinguishing between them can be even fuzzier than the bad dichotomies.