User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 13

  1. #1

    Default Where does knowledge fit into functions theory?

    How does knowledge fit into the model?


    Do the perceiving functions have knowledge?
    Do they just have access to knowledge?
    How does what we know affect and work through the perceiving functions?
    Do all the functions have access to the same knowledge?

    There seems to be a path implicit in the model. That knowledge is perceived by the perceiving functions and resides in the judging functions. Is that right?

    It is also sometimes implied that some functions can work outside of the persons own knowledge boundaries. Rather than the function simply working with what is known to the individual outside of concious cognition. Is this right?

  2. #2
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfy View Post
    How does knowledge fit into the model?


    Do the perceiving functions have knowledge?
    Do they just have access to knowledge?
    How does what we know affect and work through the perceiving functions?
    Do all the functions have access to the same knowledge?

    There seems to be a path implicit in the model. That knowledge is perceived by the perceiving functions and resides in the judging functions. Is that right?

    It is also sometimes implied that some functions can work outside of the persons own knowledge boundaries. Rather than the function simply working with what is known to the individual outside of concious cognition. Is this right?
    The basic theories don't factor in for knowledge... nor for growth.

    I suppose you can "try" to extend it to account for learning.

    The perceiving functions could be influenced by knowledge... as in what you focus on. If it's a situation you're familiar with, you'll naturally zoom in to what you consider to be "important".

    By definition though Si would probably be most aware of knowledge?

    Similarly judging functions are influenced by knowledge... in this case more directly. Fe & Fi values are based on learning. Ti & Te... well the concept of logic etc is learnt.
    My stuff (design & other junk) lives here: http://nnbox.ca

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    The basic theories don't factor in for knowledge... nor for growth.

    I suppose you can "try" to extend it to account for learning.

    The perceiving functions could be influenced by knowledge... as in what you focus on. If it's a situation you're familiar with, you'll naturally zoom in to what you consider to be "important".

    By definition though Si would probably be most aware of knowledge?

    Similarly judging functions are influenced by knowledge... in this case more directly. Fe & Fi values are based on learning. Ti & Te... well the concept of logic etc is learnt.
    The whole system seems to be a sorting system for information. For what you focus on and what you do with what you know. To me, a persons knowledge framework seems to sit outside of the system.
    You would think that a persons use of the functions would be limited to the level of their exposure to information. To the persons own learning.

    The functions don't learn. They don't have access to knowledge outside of what the individual knows. That's how it seems to me.

  4. #4
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfy View Post
    The whole system seems to be a sorting system for information. For what you focus on and what you do with what you know. To me, a persons knowledge framework seems to sit outside of the system.
    You would think that a persons use of the functions would be limited to the level of their exposure to information. To the persons own learning.

    The functions don't learn. They don't have access to knowledge outside of what the individual knows. That's how it seems to me.
    Hmmm then I'm not sure what's the purpose of using the system if that's so. To me, knowledge and learning defines a huge part of a person. A system that doesn't take that into account would be none too accurate.
    My stuff (design & other junk) lives here: http://nnbox.ca

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Hmmm then I'm not sure what's the purpose of using the system if that's so. To me, knowledge and learning defines a huge part of a person. A system that doesn't take that into account would be none too accurate.
    I agree, to me knowledge and learning defines a huge part of a person.

    I think I did a poor job of asking the question.
    I think the system takes it into account but does not address it specifically.
    My question is, the functions do something with/to something. They are cognitive processes.

    What is the material they process?
    information?
    experience?
    knowledge?

    I think an individual is limited to using the functions within their own accumulated knowledge and experiences.

    What limits the functions? What limits our thinking?
    Do you think the answer to these questions are the same?

  6. #6

    Default

    I think I made a mistake when I said the knowledge framework sits outside of the system. I think the whole system is comprised of our accumulated knowledge, experience and thus limited to it.

  7. #7
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Nowhere does the system directly mention knowledge and experience... the closest is function development, even that doesn't really address the issue.

    We can attempt to fit knowledge to the system. Or simply admit the system is flawed.
    My stuff (design & other junk) lives here: http://nnbox.ca

  8. #8
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    It seems to me that MBTI doesn't concern itself with knowledge, but with a model that explains the nature of interpretive preference.

    Our perceiving functions give us raw, uninterpreted data, and uninterpreted data doens't constitute knowledge.

    For instance, Se might present you with red, white, and blue splotches, but a judging function is required to take this data, conjoin and relate them in certain ways, i.e., make judgments about the relations that hold between each datum, in order for the perceiver to come to the conclusion that these particular splotches represent, or correspond to, or ______(insert preferred epistemological term here), an American flag.

    Of course, the perceiver could err in his judgment, and thus his conclusions would not constitute knowledge, but, in any case, the perceiver has now used his judging function to interpret the data transmitted by his perceiving function.

  9. #9
    full of love Kingfisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    1,687

    Default

    i am not sure i completely understand this thread, it is a little hard for me to follow.

    but i think that S/N determines how we take information and turn it into knowledge.
    i think that the sensing function, especially Se, processes information and turns it into functional or practical knowledge, knowledge of things that physically exist.
    i think that the intuition function processes information and turns it into theoretical and abstract knowledge, knowledge of ideas and concepts.

    maybe that is why this thread is confusing to me. it is pretty highly conceptual, and i think i have a very under-developed intuition.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfisher View Post
    but i think that S/N determines how we take information and turn it into knowledge.
    i think that the sensing function, especially Se, processes information and turns it into functional or practical knowledge, knowledge of things that physically exist.
    i think that the intuition function processes information and turns it into theoretical and abstract knowledge, knowledge of ideas and concepts.
    I just asked the question poorly...I think that's right. Do you think we are limited by all we have been able to perceive and process over the course of our lifetime? All that has come into our awareness. Those are the building blocks you are working with.

    perception
    In philosophy, psychology, and the cognitive sciences, perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information

    Two types of consciousness are considerable regarding perception: phenomenal (any occurrence that is observable and physical) and psychological.


    I think so. I just want someone to clarify it for me.

Similar Threads

  1. Cognitive Functions- where does the common concept of "intuition" fit in?
    By greenfairy in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-12-2012, 12:48 AM
  2. Strauss-Howe generational theory: What's your take? Where do you fit in?
    By xisnotx in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-22-2011, 02:08 PM
  3. "Does it fit"?
    By beyondaurora in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-30-2009, 01:41 PM
  4. Where does the introverted/extraverted function difference show up?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-19-2008, 11:04 AM
  5. Learning to Fit into Groups
    By Mole in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-04-2008, 12:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO