In your three-letter nomenclature
(when you speak of the iNf, for instance) is the capital letter meant to
indicate that the function that is capitalized is more developed or in some
other way a very 'strong' function? Are you saying, for instance, that the iNfp,
although she has an Fi-Ne-Si-Te preference order, may have a more highly developed
intuitive function, or that the intuitive function has some other kind of 'strength' in comparison to the feeling function?
No. We are saying that N is the dominant function. The capitalized letter indicates the dominant function. The iNf has an N-F-T-S order
Sometimes you say the same thing about the iNfp; you say the iNfp is
an 'introvert with an N-F-T-S preference order.' Don't you mean by this that the iNfp has an Ne-Fi-Te-Si preference order?
No. For the introvert an N-F-T-S preference order is equivalent to an Ni-Fe-Ti-Se preference order. When we say the iNfp has
an N-F-T-S we mean that the iNfp has an Ni-Fe-Ti-Se order.
But that is the same preference
order that the MBTI associates with the INFJ, isn't it?
Yes, exactly.
But shouldn't the iNfp have Fi as the
dominant function, like the INFP?
No. In order to understand why this is
so, you have to start by grasping what the meaning of the first three letters
in the nomenclature is. The three-letter nomenclature (e.g., 'iNf' or 'inF' or 'eSt')
is just another way of labeling the 16 MBTI types. Instead of using the complex rule (about the J or P in combination with the E or I) to tell whether the second or third letter
in the type name is the dominant function, we are simply suggesting that the
dominant function be capitalized. So if it is intuition that is dominant, we capitalize
the 'n', and get 'iNf'. This is BY DEFINITION equivalent to an introvert
with N-F-T-S preference order (that is, Ni-Fe-Ti-Se preference order).
Then, in your nomenclature, you don't need the 'j' or 'p'?
Not in order to indicate the
preference order.
So we can dispense with the J and P totally?
Not if you want the type name to also show
whether the individual prefers 'closure' or not. If you want the name to show
how the individual tested on the J/P scale you'll need
to tack on a J or P.
Then isn't your 4-letter nomenclature REDUNDANT - since it uses the capital letter to show which function is dominant, and also uses the J/P designation to indicate which function is dominant?
No. In our nomenclature it is ONLY
the capital letter that indicates which function is dominant.
Then what does the J or P indicate?
It indicates only the trait for which the J/P scale tests (ie, 'closure', or whatever you want to call it).
Ah, but if you do it that way, your nomenclature will result in some very peculiar
combinations. Since you can tack either a 'J' or a 'P' onto any three-letter combo, you'd have to allow a 'p' to be tacked onto the 'iNf' three-letter combo. This would result in an 'iNfp' combination, no?
Yes, exactly.
But this is a contradiction, isn't it! Your capital N tells us that N is
the dominant function, but the 'p' (in combination with the i) tells us that
F is the dominant function, no?
No. Not if you refrain from using the 'j' or 'p' designation to signal which function is dominant. The new nomenclature, as we've just explained, uses a different way of signaling which function is dominant - it is capitalized. The capital letter can handle that job all by itself.
But why do it that way instead of the way the MBTI does it?
In order to show that the letter in the j/p spot in the MBTI name actually has TWO purposes. The 'contradiction' that you point out actually shows us that the last letter in the MBTI type name (the J orP) is AMBIGUOUS. It has two meanings, and sometimes the two senses in which the last letter is used can come into conflict.
How so?
The J or P has two functions - it
1) shows whether the second or third letter in the name is the dominant function,
and 2) it also says something about the individual's tendency toward 'closure'.
The new nomenclature separates out these two purposes. It reserves the
letter 'j' and 'p' for the latter purpose, and uses the CAPITAL letter in
the type name for the former purpose (signaling which function is dominant).
But that allows us to take the iNf (who has an Ni-Fe-Ti-Se preference order) and attach a 'p' to it!
Yes, precisely. That's exactly what happens when you separate out these two roles that the last letter plays, this new possibility is opened
up! That's the point of the nomenclature. That's why we describe it as a
'heuristic' device - it teaches something about the assumptions underlying
the MBTI.
But why doesn't the MBTI permit us to have combinations like the one you associate with the iNfp - an Ni-Fe-Ti-Se preference order with a 'p' bias?
Because the MBTI conflates the two purposes that
we have been discussing, the two SENSES of 'J' and 'P', into one. It assumes that anybody who has an Ni-Fe-Ti-Se preference order cannot score 'P'.
But are there persons with an Ni-Fe-Ti-Se preference order who will score 'p'?
Yes.
But I thought it was impossible. Millions of people have taken the MBTI and
no-one who has scored 'P' has ever come out with an Ni-Fe-Ti-Se preference order!
But that's simply because you CAN'T
come out of the MBTI test with an Ni-Fe-Ti-Se order and a score of 'p'. The rules for scoring the test don't permit it - they legislate that if an introvert scores 'p', she must have F as a dominant function and cannot have N as the dominant function. This is all legislated
'by definition'.
So what? It's their test. Can't they legislate that?
They CAN do so, sure. But simply saying that
something is true (or assuming it to be so) does not make it true. Matters
such as this are subject to empirical verfication or falsification.
Haven't they done that? Haven't they tested this assumption?
Not to our knowledge.
Why not?
Apparently because it has never occured to anyone that it was necessary. The fact that the last letter in the MBTI type-name has two roles to play (and is thus ambiguous) is in effect hidden by the complex manner in which the J/P designation operates.
But I thought that it was supposed to be true that if an introvert has extraverted thinking or feeling (the 'judging' functions), he will necessarily seek 'closure'
in external matters - because these are the 'judging' functions.
And this accords with the fact that when an introvert scores 'j'
they automatically get T or F as their extraverted function.
That is the THEORY. But is it true? Does somebody who extraverts feeling necessarily desire closure? Conversely, does somebody who seeks closure in the outside world prefer to use thinking or feeling as their function
of choice in external affairs? That is what we are calling into question.
These assumptions are hypotheses until they can be proven by
empirical means.
But can't the MBTI simply make assumptions like this?
If they are simply offering an hypothesis, sure they can. But not if they are asserting that these relationships are actually true, and thereby implying that it can in reality be no other way.
But it seems to me that the relationship between extraverted feeling and/or thinking and a preference for closure is more than an hypothesis. Feeling and thinking
are DEFINED as evaluative, and this entails a bias toward closure. When
we 'evaluate' something, we seek closure.
Like we say, that is the theory. But until we see the evidence for it, it is only
reasonable not to rule out, 'by definition', the possiblity that someone can extravert feeling (or thinking) and still score 'p'.
Well let me turn this request for evidence back on you. Is there any evidence that the way they say it works is NOT the way it works?
Well, there are two things to consider
in this regard.
The first consideration simply raises some significant reasonable doubt.
Feeling is not always merely a matter of 'evaluation'. Even when feeling is extraverted, it can be used in a way that is more 'receptive', and/or 'expressive', and less 'evaluative' - less apt to entail a preference for 'closure'. The same is true of 'T'. Also, extraverted N and S can be used in a manner that is consistent with closure-seeking behavior in the world outside.
Secondly, we believe that we have identified introverts who have an Ni-Fe-Ti-Se preference order, but score P on the J-P scale.
How can you tell? If it is impossible for someone to test this way on the MBTI, how can you
possibly tell?
Well, you'd have to use a different
method for assessing the preference order.
But isn't the MBTI method for assessing the preference order the accepted method?
It is the one used by the MBTI. But there are three reasons for doubting that it is the most effective method -
- It does not directly assess preference order; it INFERS preference
order;
- It infers preference order from the J/P score, according to the
very rule that we are here calling into question; and
- Other methods for assessing the preference order have been devised, which have identified individuals who have preference order arrangements that
are not permitted by the MBTI (See the Singer Loomis instrument, for example.)
How would you go about determining preference order if not by using the MBTI?
We can think of various ways.
You might use the Singer-Loomis instrument, for instance. Or devise
an alternative that seeks to determine it more DIRECTLY.
What kind of a method would be more direct?
Well, in order to decide how to
determine preference orders, you have to first ask what a preference order
is. What does it mean to prefer one thing over another? If we have more
than two things, how do we go about ranking them with respect to our preference
for them?
Let's take flavors of ice cream as an example. How do I know what my
preference order for ice cream flavors is? I ask myself if I like chocolate
better than vanilla. Or strawberry better than chocolate. I compare the
degree to which I prefer one flavor to the degree to which I prefer
ALL of the others respectively. And this leads to a ranking order. Do any of us
doubt that we could arrive at such a preference order for ourselves in this way?
But there is the possiblity that I might equally prefer butterscotch and strawberry, for example. Doesn't that pose a problem?
That only means that those two flavors will have the same ranking in the preference order for that person. Such a thing is theoretically possible with the functions too, of course.
Let's extend the analogy further. How would we go about telling not our own, but another person's ice cream preference order? This makes it a little more difficult. We have to
ask the individual some questions - we need to find out whether they'd
choose between chocolate or vanilla. We may even want to ask in what circumstances
they would prefer one over the other.
That's basically what the MBTI does, isn't it?
Yes, but with respect to the four functions
the MBTI only asks questions that compares the individual's preference for feeling to the individuals preference for thinking, and similarly with regard to sensing and
intuition. It doesn't compare the preference for sensing to the
preference for feeling, for instance. You have to compare the preference for
each function with respect to the preference for EVERY other function, taken
individually.
Why is that important?
Because that constitutes a more
DIRECT way of determining preference order. Lets use the ice cream
example again. Say you have a group of four flavors - chocolate, vanilla,
strawberry and butterscotch. A person can prefer these flavors in
one of 24 (=4*3*2*1) orders (if we don't count ties). You would not assume
that because the person prefers chocolate, they will hate
vanilla. They might like chocolate and pick vanilla as there second
choice. The only way to actually determine which of the 24
possible preference orders the individual has is to compare her
preference for each flavor to her preference for EVERY
other flavor in the group.
Now imagine somebody comes along and says, 'But I don't need to do all
those comparisons because I can infer that the person hates chocolate
from their love of vanilla'. We'd say 'Okay, perhaps. But you'll have
to show us why you think that that is the case - and allow your
hypothesis to be tested.'
Does your FD33 use the more 'direct' method about which you've been
talking?
We tried to design the FD33
in such a way as to compare the individual's preference for one function with his or her preference for each of the remaining three.
Wouldn't this result in some rather peculiar combinations? Like S-N-T-F?
Yes, it does.
Doesn't that bother you?
No. The Singer-Loomis instrument
(SLIP) also permits such combinations. According to their reports such
'non-traditional' combos are actually rather frequent.
Do you also find them to be frequent?
We hope to be able to report our findings regarding the experimental FD33 in the next issue of the Journal. We'd rather wait until then to discuss it in detail. Let it suffice to say that at this point it looks to us like the iNfp (which is also 'non-traditional' in the sense of being a combination not permitted by the MBTI) may appear almost as frequently as the inFp. And while other non-traditional orders (such as the N-T-S-F) also seem to appear more frequently than one might at first suspect, orders like the N-S-T-F seem to be found much more rarely.
What if your test is wrong?
The FD33 has been very helpful to us - in
explaining the distribution of MBTI types across the Enneagram, and in other ways that we hadn't expected. But if it is flawed, and even if it is so tremendously flawed as to make the results arrived at by utilizing it absolutely useless, it would only mean that this particular test could not be used to identify iNfps and so forth. It would not effect the critique of the J/P designation that is generated by the alternative nomenclature, as described in our paper on that subject or in what we have said in this coversation, above. The argument associated with the nomenclature illustrates that the onus of proof is clearly
on those who would use the J/P score to determine preference order.
