Critique the concept of "Cognitive Functions"

[Quinlan]

Is the concept valid? Is understanding cognitive functions useful or should we be focusing more on actual behaviours? How much did you consider cognitive functions when deciding your type? Would your type be very different if you were only considering the actual behaviours you display?

 

[Nomorenames]

The cognitive functions are essentially a vocabulary to elaborate on the differences between types and serve as justifications for why a type is the way it is.

Empiricism is the way to go. It's best to actually look at behaviors and then fine tune the vocabulary.Things get really convoluted when people are introduced to the vocabulary/ cognitive functions and then attempt to define behaviors in terms of the theory (which is often derived from secondary or tertiary sources!)

 

[Lily Bart]

Using various combinations of cognitive functions it was easy to mistype myself (several different ways) over the years. Using a coherant description of visible behaviors I knew almost instantly which type was the right one.

 

[goodgrief]

Iz gooood.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Is the concept valid?

I'd say so. Especially since MBTI and others seem to be so successful and founded their theories on Jung's original discoveries of the cognitive functions.

Is understanding cognitive functions useful or should we be focusing more on actual behaviours?

Behaviors? Like what? Liking to hike? Liking sex? Liking to walk the dog? Hating to clean? There do seem to be trends in behavior, just as there are trends in type and physical appearance, but this is useless overall because it is based on stereotyping and promotes stereotyping.

How much did you consider cognitive functions when deciding your type?

It has been the stop point for me in most of my type diagnoses, in myself and others. I tend to think in terms of MBTI type (because that's what I learned first), but when I'm confused or when I want to think more deeply about typology as it regards someone's personality, I turn to the functions every time.

Would your type be very different if you were only considering the actual behaviours you display?

I'd be an aNMiAL. (au Natural Mom into Alternative Lifestyle)

 

[Quinlan]

So how would you define the difference between a type and a stereotype?

 

[Cybin]

I think that trying to type based on behaviors is what leads to stereotyping. I think this is what leads to the line of thinking such as "You're smart and like math you must be NT" or "You are an artist you must be SP" even "T types never show emotion!" MB type just isn't meant to go that far into describing a person. Type is how they take in and interpret information. To over simplify, do they primarily see things in or out of context, do they primarily make decisions based on evaluation or logic? The same combination can lead to array of different behaviors, because behavior is an individualized action that is perhaps influenced but not defined by type.

 

[gromit]

So how would you define the difference between a type and a stereotype?

Hm... that is a great question. I'm curious what others will say.

If I had to say, I'd guess something like the difference between descriptive and proscriptive language. One talks about common characteristics, one attributes those characteristics (or denies the possibility of other characteristics/behaviors/etc.) based on category.


As for the original question...

Is the concept valid? Is understanding cognitive functions useful or should we be focusing more on actual behaviours? How much did you consider cognitive functions when deciding your type? Would your type be very different if you were only considering the actual behaviours you display?

I like the cognitive function concepts because it is a useful tool/language in terms of understanding differences and similarities between people and within ourselves in different contexts. I don't know what my type is, so I cannot answer the other questions...