o_19kdfsn0q18e31dfraas1esh19vta.pdf

that an INTJ might have introverted intuition as their dominant and extraverted thinking as
their auxiliary, while another might have introverted thinking as their dominant and
extraverted intuition as their auxiliary—insofar as such constructs can be considered valid at
all. No evidence has been found for the typical construct in which Ni > Te > Fi > Se for
type INTJ.
6. Nor is there any proof that functions are extraverted or introverted. Reynierse and Harker
examined whether dominant functions that are extraverted (i.e. dominant extraverted
feeling) turned up more clearly than dominant functions that are introverted (i.e. dominant
introverted feeling). If type dynamics theory are real, then those who extravert their feeling
function should show it more clearly and obviously than those who introvert it. But no
differences were noted by observers; in fact, traits of both extraverted and introverted
dominant functions were seen as being just as clear and obvious. The perceived differences,
then, are due to plain, simple Introversion and Extraversion, and not to the type dynamics
explanation that certain parts of oneself are either introverted or extraverted.
7. But the biggy is this. A recent study 319 set out to determine what exactly each of the
cognitive functions consisted of—i.e. the researchers set out to determine a standard,
agreed-upon definition of each cognitive function. To do this, they collected 152 descriptive
words and phrases used in type literature to describe each cognitive function and its attitude
(i.e. thinking introverted, thinking extraverted, intuition introverted, intuition extraverted,
etc.). 31 type experts—authors, practitioners, trainers—were called in to review the list and
decide which descriptors fit each of the eight function-attitudes.
The experts rated each descriptor's applicability to each function-attitude on a 1 to 5 scale.
For 72 of the 152 descriptors, there was an expert consensus that a descriptor primarily
matched a unique function attitude. For the rest of the descriptors, it was found that experts
tended to assign the descriptors equally to two or more function-attitudes, or else didn't
agree on any particular function-attitude at all.
So, how does this apply to type INTJ?
The original list of 152 adjectives included the following 25 descriptors, which type
literature suggested were characteristic of Ni: overlooks details, mystical, trusts the
unconscious, conceptual thinker, dreamy, forward thinking, imaginative, insightful, psychic
sensitivity, reads between the lines, sees multiple perspectives, sees the whole picture,
theoretical, thinks in flowing images, thinks in metaphors, visionary, absent-minded, artistic,
forgetful, quiet, strongly individualistic, individualistic, overcomplexifies, detached, and
likes mental models.
So how many of these descriptors did the 31 type experts agree upon as characteristic of Ni?
Two. Namely "mystical" and "Trusts the unconscious." "Mystical" was also considered to
be somewhat characteristic of Fi, and "trusts the unconscious" was also considered to be
somewhat characteristic of Ne and Fe. This begs an obvious question. Why is it that out of
25 suggested descriptors for Ni, only 2 of them were actually sort of agreed upon by type
practitioners?
It is quite simple: no one actually knows what Ni is, and everyone is using their own unique
definition of the term. Therefore there is no consensual meaning of Ni—rather, there are 31
meanings of Ni, each one unique to a specific type user. Such sloppy non-definitions allow
unlimited interpretations of data, thus making any claims for cognitive functions unproven
319 McPeek & Martin, 2012a; McPeek & Martin, 2012b