I don't understand. If they are both A then they are the same person? Then yes because we hopefully should always be learning.Originally Posted by hellothere
I don't understand. If they are both A then they are the same person? Then yes because we hopefully should always be learning.
tcaudillg was referring to a continuum between dichotomies - the example he used was T and F - but A and B could equally refer to say Ne and Se.
Do you think someone can be "more T" (or "more Ne") than another person, even if they are both "T" (or both "Ne")?
Good question. I think in theory no. In practice it could look like this-for several reasons:Some people develop an unhealthy fixation with their dominant function, and this can create the impression of being more A. This is because the person is allowing function A to be gratified to excess. Another example is that some people may place more of an emphasis on one of their other functions-for instance they may call upon a weaker N because there job is to work in theoretical physics. So on that note it's possible sub types are really just a way of expressing such a functional preference (although more research on sub types is required).
So what this means is that personal emphasis can change but the actual type would remain static.
I think that % of A can be useful in testing-if someone is close to 50% then they need to spend more time investigating to determine their preference, and if it comes up as 100% then that's a suggestion that the person is wise to the test and the questions it asks. So I wouldn't take this percentage on a populace base, but it might be useful to use it representing only the questions the test itself asks, simply for the validity of the result.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote