User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 27

  1. #11
    DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    Hype
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    IMO this is related to a much large problem which is trying to anchor types via the cognitive functions and preference order to begin with. It's so arbitrary its borderline retardation. CHALLENGE to all on this board that disagree with me on this: give me any thought, feeling or behavior and I can explain it using ANY combination of functions(you choose them for me), and i wont even have to stretch your imagination that much to do so. The cognitive processes theory is a "any shoe size fits" theory and thus explains nothing.. (rather, i should say it explains everything regardless of what way you want to explain it, which renders it entirely subjective and inconsistent)

    MBTI theorists like evan says its like this to reduce the combinatorics problems you would run into if you let cognitive functions strengths/preference dictate how many types we would have. (which would be 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 40,000+ types). So what they do is settle on 16 and do their best to "wiggle" people into one of those types via cognitive functions. However, this does nothing to explain the "in betweeners" we see on this board and in the real world. If you ask a rigid MBTI theorist, they will tell you that a person with a Dominant Ni and auxillary Fi should not even exist according to definitions, nor should someone with dom Ne aux Ni, but they do and we have those people here present on this message board.

    I suggest just try to ditch the whole notion of individual cognitive functions and look for your/other's COHESIVE type, and if you yourself as an XXXX type feel it convenient to explain something you do via a function then go ahead, but don't start with the cognitive functions firstly and definitely don't type others by the cog functions. And when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. There is absolutely NOTHING in the description or definitions of Se that, say, allows you to understand how an ISTP (just as an example) sees the world and why they rebel so often against it. If you want to know how ISTPs go about the world, do not appeal to cognitive functions, just talk to/observe them, and you will understand ISTPs and be able to spot them. No appeal to dom/aux processes is needed and in fact I think it leads you astray.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    3w2
    Socionics
    EIE None
    Posts
    320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    IMO this is related to a much large problem which is trying to anchor types via the cognitive functions and preference order to begin with. It's so arbitrary its borderline retardation. CHALLENGE to all on this board that disagree with me on this: give me any thought, feeling or behavior and I can explain it using ANY combination of functions(you choose them for me), and i wont even have to stretch your imagination that much to do so. The cognitive processes theory is a "any shoe size fits" theory and thus explains nothing.. (rather, i should say it explains everything regardless of what way you want to explain it, which renders it entirely subjective and inconsistent)

    MBTI theorists like evan says its like this to reduce the combinatorics problems you would run into if you let cognitive functions strengths/preference dictate how many types we would have. (which would be 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 40,000+ types). So what they do is settle on 16 and do their best to "wiggle" people into one of those types via cognitive functions. However, this does nothing to explain the "in betweeners" we see on this board and in the real world. If you ask a rigid MBTI theorist, they will tell you that a person with a Dominant Ni and auxillary Fi should not even exist according to definitions, nor should someone with dom Ne aux Ni, but they do and we have those people here present on this message board.

    I suggest just try to ditch the whole notion of individual cognitive functions and look for your/other's COHESIVE type, and if you yourself as an XXXX type feel it convenient to explain something you do via a function then go ahead, but don't start with the cognitive functions firstly and definitely don't type others by the cog functions. And when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. There is absolutely NOTHING in the description or definitions of Se that, say, allows you to understand how an ISTP (just as an example) sees the world and why they rebel so often against it. If you want to know how ISTPs go about the world, do not appeal to cognitive functions, just talk to/observe them, and you will understand ISTPs and be able to spot them. No appeal to dom/aux processes is needed and in fact I think it leads you astray.
    I will accept your challenge, but first I ask you this: How are the functions any more arbitrary than the E/I S/N T/F J/P dichotomies? Does your self-proclaimed type, INTP, describe who you are and does it define you as equivalent to all other "INTPs"? Or are those concepts represented on a continuum like unto the functions? Does that make your type description any less accurate?

    I understand that function development ordering is what destructs the theory's validity. Still I don't think that destroys the entire concept; nor the fact that SPs are more Se oriented, SJs are more Si oriented for example.

    Additionally, a certain type isn't equivalent to a thought, feeling, or behavior. How might your pledge to disprove cognitive function theory as applied to type by explaining a thought, feeling, or behavior with any order of the functions be possible?

  3. #13
    DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    Hype
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    The cognitive process theory has more arbitrariness on the sole basis that it uses either Function Strength or "preference order" to determine/wiggle someone into one of the sixteen types. As stated, 8 factorial is 40320 possible types if we wish to emphasize cognitive function "strength" OR the order of preference. This has much more room for mistakes and error/noise compared with the 16 types we get from the i/e n/s dichotomies.

    I also argue against this theory because people are simply not cognitive functions, they are a conglomeration of them. As i argue, an ISTP is neither defined NOR described by Se, they are described by being ISTP. What that means should be the issue of focus/research, not where Se appears in some arbitrary "order". If you "pull out" Se from the ISTP and try to analyze it, you gain no insight into the ISTP because people are not "Stand-alone" cognitive functions - people are combinations of functions and withdrawing them from people destroys the signifigance of them.

    It's like when people ask "what is time?". Unless you are asking for a time duration for something to take place, It's a nonsensical question in and of itself. EVERY single mathematical equation in chemistry or physics that has ANY useful meaning whatsoever has time in the denominator or numerator of some other variable because it must be understood in reference to some other physical thing or happening going on. What a unit of time is to the motion equation is completely different from what a unit of time means in the Flux equations (flux is the amount of "STUFF" that flows through a unit area per unit time). It is the same for the cognitive functions - they MUST be understood in relation to each other for EACH individual type due to claimed preference order.

    Just as if you are to pull the dimensional variable "time" from underneath the displacement equation or the flux equations and ask "What is this?" you get nothing, if you pull out "Ti" from the INTP or ISTP you get an analysis of nothing. Those variables do NOT stand by themselves and exist in conjunction with other variables.

    As such, I see much less potential for errors by simply using the 4 scale dichotomies, because I don't think it's possible to understand what Se is. Perhaps we can never know what an ISTP is either, but at least we try to grab at something more meaningful. And even if you do know what Se is, every personality type is going to have different uses for it. So why bring it up in the first place? Just describe the 16 types as best as possible and be done with it.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    3w2
    Socionics
    EIE None
    Posts
    320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    As such, I see much less potential for errors by simply using the 4 scale dichotomies, because I don't think it's possible to understand what Se is. And even if you do know what Se is, every personality type is going to have different uses for it. So why bring it up in the first place? Just describe the 16 types and be done with it.
    Ah yes, so you do argue the validity of the individual functions then, no?

  5. #15
    DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    Hype
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    They could have validity. That's not the problem, the problem is that even if they are valid, how are they supposed to help us understand the Types accurately seeing as people are not defined by singular functions?

    Aside from me being able to say things like "This coffee is making my Ne go off the chain!", I don't see any advantage to mentioning the cognitive functions whatsoever.

    Additionally, a certain type isn't equivalent to a thought, feeling, or behavior. How might your pledge to disprove cognitive function theory as applied to type by explaining a thought, feeling, or behavior with any order of the functions be possible?
    Because it shows how the cognitive process theory is an "any size fits" theory if we use the cognitive functions alone as the basis for typing people. This means any person's behavior or thoughts or feelings can be described by ANY cognitive function, meaning every person's behavior can be explained by ALL sixteen types, showing it's a very poor basis for a foundational theory.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    3w2
    Socionics
    EIE None
    Posts
    320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    It's like when people ask "what is time?". Unless you are asking for a time duration for something to take place, It's a nonsensical question in and of itself. EVERY single mathematical equation in chemistry or physics that has ANY useful meaning whatsoever has time in the denominator because it must be understood in reference to some other physical thing or happening going on. What a unit of time is to the motion equation is completely different from what a unit of time means in the Flux equations (flux is the amount of "STUFF" that flows through a unit area per unit time). It is the same for the cognitive functions - they MUST be understood in relation to each other for EACH individual type due to claimed preference order.
    Yes, time is difficult to define with precision. Does that mean its not worth defining? Should time not even be assigned a name such as "time" because it is too difficult to define?

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    ..even if you do know what Se is, every personality type is going to have different uses for it. So why bring it up in the first place? Just describe the 16 types and be done with it.
    Of course every personality type is going to have different uses for Se. That doesn't mean that because Se and Si are poles they are not used more by some and less by others. What about the normal standardized distribution curve, which holds true when describing ANY variable? Does it not make sense to say that a certain percentage of the pop use one function more than another? Can you prove that the Gaussian curve has no validity?

    I have respect for your theory, I do. And I agree that trying to develop an equation to describe personality is like trying to develop an equation to describe time. It won't be precise. But does that mean it does not have merit?

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    3w2
    Socionics
    EIE None
    Posts
    320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post

    Because it shows how the cognitive process theory is an "any size fits" theory if we use the cognitive functions alone as the basis for typing people. This means any person's behavior or thoughts or feelings can be described by ANY cognitive function, meaning every person's behavior can be explained by ALL sixteen types, showing it's a very poor basis for a foundational theory.
    True, although behavior OR thoughts OR feelings OR even a combination do not fully define a person.

  8. #18
    DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    Hype
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    "Yes, time is difficult to define with precision. Does that mean its not worth defining? Should time not even be assigned a name such as "time" because it is too difficult to define?"

    It's not difficult, its IMPOSSIBLE. "Since 1967, the second has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." Physicists are actually pushed to define a second in terms of the revolution of an atomic particle! Trying to describe a unit of time in the absense of something else is impossible, and even in a grander more abstract sense time is not a stand-alone variable: Space and time are intrinsically linked, and this is a fact of modern physics.

    I'm not saying that its impossible to define Se independent of the other functions, I don't have to go that far. i'm saying that even if you do, it won't really benefit our theory any better, and will just yield more errors.


    And the reason that any function or measurement approaches the bell curve has to do with the mathematics involved. If you take ANY function in EXISTENCE and convolve it with itself over and over (or if you are in applications take any measurement over and over again), it ALWAYS yields the Gaussian. It's the basis for the central limit theorum and why a gaussian is to be expected over time. but Just because a mathematical function approaches a Gaussian over time does NOT mean it has real world validity, because all functions do. A gaussian isn't special, it is trivial.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    3w2
    Socionics
    EIE None
    Posts
    320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    "Yes, time is difficult to define with precision. Does that mean its not worth defining? Should time not even be assigned a name such as "time" because it is too difficult to define?"

    It's not difficult, its IMPOSSIBLE. "Since 1967, the second has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." Trying to describe a unit of time in the absense of something else is impossible, and even in a grander more abstract sense time is not a stand-alone variable: Space and time are intrinsically linked, and this is a fact of modern physics.
    Don't you see? We agree; Time cannot be defined precisely- that is impossible- but the concept merits a word in language. That kind of a definition. Where would we be without that? Preciv?

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    And the reason that any function or measurement approaches the bell curve has to do with the mathematics involved. If you take ANY function in EXISTENCE and convolve it with itself over and over (or if you are in applications take any measurement over and over again), it ALWAYS yields the Gaussian. A gaussian isn't special, it is trivial.
    I know. My point exactly. Any continuum, any polar concept can be described with the Gaussian.
    Last edited by Afkan; 01-12-2010 at 10:02 PM.

  10. #20
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    Please people, I don't want this thread to turn into another debate about how in/valid cognitive theory is.

    For the purposes of this thread, there IS a such thing as functions and in this universe you can derive a type from them so go from there.
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

Similar Threads

  1. [JCF] Development of Childish and Auxiliary functions?
    By Ribonuke in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-20-2015, 10:37 PM
  2. The Push-Pull Relationship between Dominant and Auxiliary Functions
    By Mal12345 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-25-2015, 07:27 PM
  3. Development and resolution of the dominant function
    By sculpting in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2012, 05:16 PM
  4. How do you assess the strength of your Tert and Inf functions?
    By IZthe411 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-22-2010, 10:03 AM
  5. 'Ambiverts' - relative strength of primary and secondary function
    By annnie in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-31-2010, 07:41 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