o_19kdfsn0q18e31dfraas1esh19vta.pdf

and unprovable. Ni was, in fact, the most poorly differentiated cognitive function of all.
Another interesting point is that the raters' agreed-upon descriptors for Ti seem to match
INTJs better than the descriptors for Ni. Ti is, of course, the supposed dominant of
INTPs/ISTPs.
12 descriptors were found that primarily matched Ti. 320 The list was as follows: aloof, cold,
desires internal logic, detached, in-depth concentration, independent, individualistic, likes
mental models, overcomplexifies, pure intellectual, research-minded, and unique use of
logic.
These 12 descriptors fit type INTP, as would be expected since Ti is believed to be the
INTP's dominant function. But as nearly as I can tell, all 12 descriptors match both INTPs
and INTJs equally well. Following this logic, it would seem that Ti is a better dominant for
INTJs than Ni. Then, only five of the Ti descriptors seem to fit type ISTP (aloof, cold,
desires internal logic, independent, and individualistic). Ti is not the dominant of INTJs, yet
the descriptors of Ti seem to fit both INTJs and INTPs to a tee. Ti is the dominant of ISTPs,
yet the descriptors do not seem to fit type ISTP very well. Yet Ni, not Ti, is believed to be
the dominant of the INTJ.
What can we say about this? Even if one accepts that the cognitive functions exist, the
murkiness and paucity of these descriptors must give one pause. The researchers also
compared the descriptors for each cognitive function with data compiled on hundreds of
typed people to see if they exhibited the traits said to be characteristic of their cognitive
functions. Very little support for the theory of cognitive functions was found. There was no
evidence that could not be more clearly, accurately, and simply explained by plain type
theory without cognitive functions. Occam's razor dictates that the simplest explanation is
most likely to be true.
In the absence of both evidence and working definitions, it is hard to think of any logical reason to
continue to use the cognitive functions. Ergo, I have left them out of this book.
A Better Alternative
One proposed replacement scheme (which I happen to agree with) drops type dynamics entirely. 321
Instead, a person’s letters (i.e. INTJ) are ranked in order of “strength.” And what is meant by
strength, exactly?
Well, when you took the Myers-Briggs test (or any of the other MBTI knockoffs floating around)
you probably noticed that some of your personality traits—i.e., Thinking, Feeling or whatever—
were very clear and obvious, i.e. you answered 9/10 questions as a Thinker rather than a Feeler. For
other personality traits, perhaps Sensing vs. Intuition, you might have noticed that you were pretty
middle-of-the-road in that you didn’t have much preference for either way of functioning. For
example, perhaps you only answered 6/10 questions as an Intuitive.
In the traditional way of looking at type theory, it doesn’t matter whether your preference for any
particular letter is clear or slight—a letter is a letter is a letter. If you answer 10/10 questions about
Introversion vs. Extraversion as an Introvert, then it is considered the same thing as if you had
320 However, for 5 of these 12 descriptors, secondary matches with Te, plain N, and Ni were found. In short, the
surveyed experts thought that those five descriptors mainly matched Ti, but also secondarily matched Te, N, and
Ni.
321 Reyneirse, 2012