Add a New Function to MBTI

[Edahn]

What's the function? What are some questions that can be used to classify people along the function? Any predictions about how it might look in conjunction with the temperaments or types?

[Edahn]

One personality feature I've noticed that occurs in varying degrees is a need for group membership. The closest thing I know of in personality psychology would be the need for affiliation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_for_affiliation) (N-affil), but need for affiliation is more of a need to connect. What I'm proposing is a need for group inclusion or membership ("N-memb").

Example: people with a high N-memb are the types of people who fear excommunication from a group. These groups can be religious (identifying with Christians), a psychological group (NTs), an academic group (as a scientist or skeptic), or political group (as a liberal or liberal-hater). I've found lots of people who are afraid of losing membership in these group. The stronger the attachment to (need for) membership, the more likely the person will show aggression towards opposing group members. For example, the religious people will battle with each other, the NTs will try and deprecate NFs, the skeptics will deride the believers, and the liberals will criticize the republicans and capitalists. I am pretty sure we could find a link between N-memb and social exclusion at a young age, and draw correlations with attachment theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory), specifically, fearful/anxious/avoidant with high N-memb and secure with low N-memb. In contrast to the high N-membs, the low N-membs would be comfortable not belonging to groups, challenging the groups, and standing alone. A good example might be religious iconoclasts. Buddha, OSHO, Abraham, Jesus to name a few. Holden Caufield comes to mind, too.

A few questions to tease out high N-membs from low N-membs:

1. I can't help but judge people when I find out they are members of political parties that differ from mine. (T/F)

2. I am much more comfortable talking to people who share my religious heritage than people who don't. (T/F)

3. I believe that my type is somewhat superior to other types. (T/F)

4. I often criticize people by referring to their psychological type. (T/F)

5. I often criticize people by referring to their political affiliation. (T/F)

6. I have volunteered or would consider volunteering for the political party I support. (T/F)

1 point for each True.

[Bella]

I didn't read this properly. Made stupid comment.

[Usehername]

Mentally/socially healthy v. unhealthy creates so big a difference in type it really should be a function in and of itself.

[Edahn]

Mentally/socially healthy v. unhealthy creates so big a difference in type it really should be a function in and of itself.

How would operationalize healthy?

[Usehername]

How would operationalize healthy?

I don't know. Was really hopin' some Ti user would come along and put in all the effort to, you know, make it all work 'n stuff. I like your post above, btw, and think it's got a lot of potential to figure it out.

What about people that don't need to be part of a group but have a high need for meaningful, personal relationships? I would say I can stand alone but only for a short time unless I know I have a few deep relationships (friendships, family) to be true toward. I would hypothesize I can be fine so long as I have 2 good relationships with friends. And they don't need to know each other, which makes the group theory an issue.

/end random thoughts past midnight when I need to be up early tomorrow.

[ThatGirl]

I don't know. Was really hopin' some Ti user would come along and put in all the effort to, you know, make it all work 'n stuff.

isnt that what the enneagram does?

[Edahn]

Well, the easiest thing I could think of is attachment theory, which relates to how one exists within social relationships. Secure and insecure would be a simple way to build a function. It's related to what I said, but with a different emphasis. Interesting, tho, for sure. It would help explain lots of relationship and career decisions.

[ThatGirl]

Well, the easiest thing I could think of is attachment theory, which relates to how one exists within social relationships. Secure and insecure would be a simple way to build a function. It's related to what I said, but with a different emphasis. Interesting, tho, for sure. It would help explain lots of relationship and career decisions.

Thats exactly what I was trying to ask in the ego thread. Wouldn't that be fuled by ego?

"Attachment Theory"

Ones need for social acceptance and what they are willing to compromise to gain it? Control it? or leave it?

[Mondo]

My first reaction was.. no.. but from reading your description of the type- it makes sense. An INTP can have as much of a desire to belong as an ESFJ and vice versa.

[Usehername]

isnt that what the enneagram does?

Yes. But I can conceptualize MBTI very well and when I make the people whom I've typed take the test, they overwhelmingly affirm my typing skills. I can't wrap my head around definitely typing most of the people I know through the Enneagram. I think there are others like me, too.

[Edahn]

Thats exactly what I was trying to ask in the ego thread. Wouldn't that be fuled by ego?

What isn't fueled by ego? Can you be more specific?

"Attachment Theory"

?

Ones need for social acceptance and what they are willing to compromise to gain it? Control it? or leave it?

The first two are right on. Either acquire membership or retain membership. The third sounds different.

[entropie]

I think basically, when you relate the idea of MBTI as an idea of individual personality to a society thing, you will miss the point.

Society is what influences personality, but the individuum is who perceives change and influence on his own.

[ThatGirl]

What isn't fueled by ego? Can you be more specific?



?



The first two are right on. Either acquire membership or retain membership. The third sounds different.

Because the need for acceptance fuels the ego. People will disregaurd or accept things beyond their better judgment fot the sake of the group which to me is a result of intensified ego and self motivation. It seems utimatley rediculous. There are few people who do not try to "save face" for rediculous reasons.



For your question mark, I recently found the quote keys on my computer and wanted to sound regal. Did it work?:smile:



The need to not belong or to rebel against can be just as motivating as the need to be accepted. Gahndi and all those others you mentioned were just being.

[ThatGirl]

Now on this matter I believe that is what the levels of human consiousnous and self actualization pretain to. What are you focused on?

It is no doubt that one must claim some sort of esteem to be accepted into bennificial position, it is the motivation behind that that creates the person. Unless you live in the wild, getting along is getting in life

[Eric B]

Mentally/socially healthy v. unhealthy creates so big a difference in type it really should be a function in and of itself.
That's basically what "Comfort-Discomfort" is in the Type differentiation Indicator. But as it's a state and not a process (of perceiving or judging), it's not factored in as a "function".

This site: Geldart's 'Fifth' Function: an Ingenious Strategy for Reconciling the Enneagram and the MBTI (http://www.tap3x.net/EMBTI/jfifth.html) does propose a fifth function, called "Moving", which is used to fit the Enneagram 3 type into the MBTI.

[Ilah]

I think I would add Believer v. Skeptic. Believer would include religion/spirituality and also metaphysical things such as ghosts, ESP, tarot, etc. Of course there are people who believe in God but not metaphyscial things and people who believe in metaphyscial things but not God. But the idea is that some people believe in something (or someone) that cannot be proved locigally and other don't believe in anything that they cannot prove with science or logic.

One limitation to including new elements is that the theory says that no one type is better than another type. So if you include healthy v. not healthy it breaks that rule. Another trait I think is important - creativity - seems to break that rule as well because "uncreative" seems negative and "creative" seems positive.

Ilah

[Edahn]

I think I would add Believer v. Skeptic. Believer would include religion/spirituality and also metaphysical things such as ghosts, ESP, tarot, etc. Of course there are people who believe in God but not metaphyscial things and people who believe in metaphyscial things but not God. But the idea is that some people believe in something (or someone) that cannot be proved locigally and other don't believe in anything that they cannot prove with science or logic.

I dig that, although it would seem to overlap with the T/F dichotomy. Maybe call it openminded vs. skeptical?

One limitation to including new elements is that the theory says that no one type is better than another type. So if you include healthy v. not healthy it breaks that rule.

That sounds like more of an ethical issue. You don't have to accept that healthy people are "better" than non-healthy people, just that they work differently. Same goes for S and N. Really though, we can get around this with semantics by just labeling the unhealthy people with something more neutral sounding.

Another trait I think is important - creativity - seems to break that rule as well because "uncreative" seems negative and "creative" seems positive.

Same as above. The uncreative could be called "collecting" rather than "creating" or some other BS. ;)

[Ishida]

Interesting. This could tie in with racism too. But wouldn't this also go with "Traditional" and "Deviant" type things? Could have some genetic factors as well.

[Ilah]

I have posted questions about belief v. skepticism in the NT and NF forums. I have found that almost all the NTs (at least the ones here) are skeptics. I am one of the rare NTs that are not. In the NF forum there were more believers, but still quite a few skeptics and some that seemed middle of the road. It was around a 50/50 split. So although Fs were more likely to be believers, F are not all believers.

The word openminded makes my think more of toleranance than belief. Also there is a difference between funamentalist believers (who are not openminded about other religious beliefs) and New Agers (who are openminded about accepting beliefs from various traditions).

I don't know about collecting v. creating. I like to make stuff and I like to collect stuff too.

Ilah

I dig that, although it would seem to overlap with the T/F dichotomy. Maybe call it openminded vs. skeptical?



That sounds like more of an ethical issue. You don't have to accept that healthy people are "better" than non-healthy people, just that they work differently. Same goes for S and N. Really though, we can get around this with semantics by just labeling the unhealthy people with something more neutral sounding.



Same as above. The uncreative could be called "collecting" rather than "creating" or some other BS. ;)

[INTJMom]

One personality feature I've noticed that occurs in varying degrees is a need for group membership. The closest thing I know of in personality psychology would be the need for affiliation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_for_affiliation) (N-affil), but need for affiliation is more of a need to connect. What I'm proposing is a need for group inclusion or membership ("N-memb").
....
I'm not sure this can be classified as MBTT thing.
I was taught many years ago that all human beings have 3 basic psychological needs:
the need for security, self-worth and significance.
Once you flesh those out, the need to belong is wrapped up in one of those words,
so in actuality all humans have a need for group membership.


Why don't you do a poll and ask?
However, you need to fully define the differences.


I think there's a lot of psychological reasons why a person would or would not feel a need to belong to a group which might have nothing to do with MBTT.
For instance, children who grow up never having properly bonded to their caregiver as a baby can be antisocial.

[Ilah]

I'm not sure this can be classified as MBTT thing.
I was taught many years ago that all human beings have 3 basic psychological needs:
the need for security, self-worth and significance.
Once you flesh those out, the need to belong is wrapped up in one of those words,
so in actuality all humans have a need for group membership.


I would tend to agree. Even people who rebell against society and want nothing to do with it tend to form there own groups of outsiders. For example: goths, hippies, punks, etc.

I don't think you need to be part of an official group to satisfy a sense of belonging. Close ties with family members, a circle of friends that hang out together or a close knit community could fullfill a sense of belonging.

Those who feel they don't fit in with society in general might have more of a need for a sense of belonging, but others respond by adopting a "loner who doesn't need anyone" mentality. But then I see lots of self proclaimed loners on internet groups, so I think that is filling a belonging need for them.

Ilah

[LunarMoon]

The Neuroticism facet of the Big Five immediately comes to mind. It's roughly defined by the stability of a person's mood and its related affect on his or her actions. The trait has been found to be independent from the other four factors of which the MBTI actually has parallels with, such as Intuitive to Openness or Accommodating to Feeling. With that said, someone with an unusually low Accommodation score or an unusually high Neuroticism score would probably come off as "unhealthy". Belief in the paranormal probably connects with the Intuitive-Sensing dimension and the aspect of Thinking vs. Feeling.

Another trait I think is important - creativity - seems to break that rule as well because "uncreative" seems negative and "creative" seems positive.
The overwhelming majority of surveyed creative scientists and writers prefer the Intuitive Function. You seem to be speaking from the perspective of a creative person but there are people who value practical benefits over creativity. Those who believe that government art programs are waste of tax money immediately come to mind.

[Jack Flak]

Introverted/Extraverted Coolness.

If you're Ci, you think you're cool, and if you're Ce, everyone else does.